SOCIALISM  11  TIE  GHM 


OR, 

HENRY  GEORGE  VS.  ARCHBISHOP  CORRIGAN. 


KEY.  WILLIBALD  HAOKNER, 

Priest  of  the  Diocese  of  La  Crosse,  Wis, 


CHRISTIAN  PRESS  ASSOCIATION  PUBLISHING  CO., 
New  York 

AND 

SAN  FRANCISCO,  CAL. 


SOCIALISM  AID  THE  CAM; 


OR. 


HEMY  6B0R6B  VS.  ARCHBISHOP  C0BRI6M. 


BEV.  WILLIBALD  HAOKNEB, 

Priest  of  the  Diocese  of  La  Crosse,  Wis, 


CHRISTIAN  PRESS  ASSOCIATION  PUBLISHING  CO., 
New  York 

AND 

SAN  FRANCISCO.  GAL. 


Despotism  of  Land-Communism 

OB 

FREE  HOMES  I-WHICH? 


"...  And  my  soul  aches 
To  know,  when  two  authorities  are  up, 

.  .  .  how  soon  confusioh 
May  enter  'twixt  the  gap  of  both,  and  take 
The  one  by  th*  other." 

"-Coriolan.  III.  sc.  i. 

No  question  is  more  agitated  at  present  than 
the  social  question.  It  is  treated  in  parliaments 
and  pulpits,  in  periodicals  and  the  daily  press. 
Everybody,  no  matter  how  rich  or  how  poor, 
talks  of  it.  It  is  the  burning  question  of  our 
age — ^indeed,  the  question  of  questions.  And 
even  in  this  country,  with  its  free  institutions, 
this  question  is  coming  to  the  front,  and  lately 
was  prominently  brought  forward  by  the  pas- 
toral letter  of  Archbishop  Corrigan,  of  New 
York,  administering  a  just  warning  to  Ids  flock  ; 
wliile  one  of  the  foremost  representatives  of 
the  socialistic  theory,  Mr.  Henry  George,  like 
another  Goliath,  arose,  and,  challenging  the 
world,  took  up  the  lance  against  the  archbishop 
by  addressing  to  his  Grace  an  open  letter. 

3 


4 


Socialism  and  the  (  hurch ;  or, 


But  it  was  an  unsuccessful  assault,  in  which 
the  doughty  knight  of  the  Socialists  only  reveal- 
ed the  weakness  of  his  aririor.  For  the  letter  6f 
Mr.  Henry  George  is  full  of  sophistry  and  false 
statements.  Mr.  George,  evidently,  has  never 
occupied  himself  much  with  St.  Thomas  Aquinas 
or  Thomistic  methods,  otherwise  he  would  not 
have  committed  so  many  sins  against  logic  and 
common  sense. 

Nothing  brought  more  to  my  mind  the  timely 
counsel  of  Pope  Leo  XIII.,  to  fall  back  on  St. 
Thomas  and  scholastic  methods,  than  the  confu- 
sion of  ideas  this  letter  betrays.  I  shall  at  once 
proceed  to  discuss  the  points  at  issue. 

I.  PHILOSOPHICAL  ASPECT  OF  THE  QUESTION. 

According  to  Thomistic  teaching,  substanceSj, 
or  existing  things,  are  composed  of  matter  and 
form.  This  dualism  pervades  the  entire  philo- 
sophy of  St.  Thomas  and  the  scholastics,  and 
marvellously  aids  in  analyzing  and  resolving  all 
questions,  however  diflScult  they  may  be. 

The  matter,  they  say,  is  the  substratum  of 
things  existing,  a  something  undetermined; 
whilst  the  form  narrows  down  the  matter  to 
species,  determines  it,  and  makes  it  actually  sub- 
sist in  a  certain  mode.  The  matter  has  a  passive 
inclination  ;  the  form  is  an  active  principle  ;  they 
are  in  relation  to  each  other  as  potency  and  act. 
Neither  the  one  nor  the  other  is  the  thing  or 


Henry  George  V9.  Archbishop  Corrigan. 


&5 


Bubstance,  but  (  both'  together  form  the  substance 
or  thing  existing."^ 

The  theory  of  matter  and  form  is  profitably^? 
applied  not  only  to  real  substances  but  also  to 
abstract  ideas.   Let  us  apply  it,  then,  to^'pror 
perty^"  to  land-propertyy  about  which  there  is. 
now  so  much  controversy.    According  to  the  pre- 
mises, we  \\dive  property  material  and  propertp-f 
formal.     Property  material  is  iu different  and 
undetermined  in  its  nature,  inasmuch  as  thef: 
whole  globe  can  be  possessed  or  owned,  to  use , 
thte  phrase  of  Mr  George.     This  property  ma- 
terial  is  God^s  creation,  is  given  by  God  to  all 
mankind  (Gen.  i.   28):      Increase  and  multi- 
ply, and  fill  the  earth,  and  subdue  it,  and  rule 
over  the  fishes  of  the  sea,  and  the  fowls  of  the^ 
air,  and  all  living  creatures  that  move  upon  the 
earth." 

*  Distinctio  autem  rerum  secundum  speciem  est  per  formas'^ 
{Contra  Gent,,  lib.  ii.  cap.  xl.) 

**TJnde  in  compositis  ex  materia  et  forma,  nee  materia  nec 
iorma  potest  dici  ipsum  quod  est,  iiec  etiam  ipsura  esse;  forma 
dici  tamen  potest,  quo  est,  secundum  quod  est  essendi  princi- 
pium  "  (lib.  ii.  cap.  liv.) 

**  Materia  est  illud,  ex  quo  res  fiunt,  ac  proinde  in  ordine  entis, 
nihil  aliud  est  quam  pura  potentia  Tersatilis  in  omnes  entium 
•Haturalium  modos.  Per  formam  materia  fit  ens  actu  et  qusBlibet 
tes  in  sua  specie  constituitur.  Quapropter  forma  generalissime 
•umpta  est  id,  quod  dat  esse,  ut  dicit  D.  Tliomas,  opusc.  31,  sen  id^' 
•[UO  res  est  id,  quod  est.  Dicit  ur  etiam  actus^  eo  quod  constituttt 
et  determinat  rem  ad  aliquem  certum  essendi  modum,  sicut 
materia  dioitur  potentia,  eo  quod  sit  de  se  Indifferens  ad  omnes 
««6endi  modes"  (Gloss.  Billuart,  etc.,  in  St.  Thorn.  Summa,  L 
qusBst.  iii.  art.  ii.) 


6  Socialism  and  the  Church  ;  or. 

Now,  to  this  material  property^  which  comet 
directly  from  God,  is  added  formal  property^ 
which  comes  directly  from  man,  and  originates 
ill  bringing  material  property^  something  of 
God's  creation,  under  the  form  of  industry,  cul- 
ture, or  art.  These  two  kinds  of  property  unit^ 
like  matter  and  form,  and  constitute  one  iudi- 
vidual  property  for  the  person  adding  tht 
formal  property  to  t\iQ  material.  Or,  in  other 
terms,  the  world,  as  tlie  material  object  of  owner- 
ghip,  by  attachment  of  the  form  of  any  subject  is 
brought  out  of  its  indifferent,  undetermined  state 
of  property,  and  determined  and  made  proper 
to  the  one  attaching  the  form :  material  proper- 
ty, potential  to  any  man^  is  made  actual^  indi- 
vidual to  tJiis  man — ad  hunc  hominem  sen  in- 
dividunm.  The  intrinsic  reason  of  this  is  be- 
cause property  material,  or  God's  creation,  and 
formal  property,  or  man's  product,  are  physical- 
ly and  inseparably  united,  and  the  one  goes 
with  the  other.  So  that  a  human  individual 
owns  per  se  the  property  formal,  but  per  acci- 
dens  only  the  property  material.  Tliere  is 
nothing  against  this  from  the  part  of  property 
material  itself  because  of  being  undetermined 
and  indiflr^rent  in  regard  to  ownership  ;  nothing 
from  the  part  of  God,  who  in  general  gave  the 
dominion  over  it  ;  nothing  from  the  part  of  man, 
who  is  capable  of  owning,  as  Mr.  George  himself 
admits  in  the  case  of  the  products  of  humau 
labor. 


Henrij  Gcorrje  vs.  Archdif</iop  (^orrigan. 


7 


Besides,  the  highest  aucliorifcies  in  philosophy 
and  theology  admit  the  right  of  individual 
property.  St.  Thomas  Aquinas,*  though  not 
directly  teaching  that  such  right  to  property 
originates  in  the  natural  law,  as  I  liave  defended 
above  with  Archbishop  Corrigan,  denies  that 
individual  proprietorship  in  God's  creation  is 
against  the  natural  law.  His  asisumption  is,  that 
the  distribution  and  determination  of  land  and 
the  things  in  this  world  took  place  by  human 
authority  and  by  positive  human  law.  Of  the 
same  opinion  is  St.  Augustine,  f  who  letraces  the 
legal  title  of  individual  property  to  God  him- 
self, inasmuch  as  the  legal  authority  is  institut- 
ed by  God,  and  acts,  therefore,  in  the  name  of 
God  and  according  to  his  will.  However,  these 
opinions  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Church  may  be 
w^ell  combined  with  the  statement  of  the  arch- 
bishop making  labor  the  natural  cause  of  indi- 
vidual ownership  in  God's  creation.  They  do 
not  exclude  each  other,  for  the  positive  human 
law^  in  some  way  must  have  a  basis  in  natural 
law.  In  fact,  the  determination  and  distribution 
of  land  and  of  similar  things  in  the  first  ages  of 
mankind  may  very  likely  have  been  effected  by 

*  Ad  primum  ergo  dicendiim,  quod  communitas  reriim  attri- 
buitur  juri  naturali,  non  quia  jvsnaiurale  didet,  omnia  esse  possi- 
den  da  communiter,  et  nihil  esse  quasi  prof/rium  possidendumf  sed 
quia  secundum  jus  naturale  non  est  distinctio  possessionum,  sed 
magis  secundum  humanum  condictum,  quod  pertinet  ad  jus  posi- 
tiyum"  {Summa,  ii.  2,  Ixvi.  art.  ii.  ad.  1). 

f  In  S.  Joh.,  tract,  vi. 


s 


Socialism  and  the  Church  ;  or, 


the  patriarclis,  as  was  done  later  on  by  Josue^ 
the  leader  of  the  Isiaelitic  people,  and  as  it  is 
done  even  in  these  United  States  by  the  govern- 
ment through  the  so  called  ''Homestead  Law." 
Let  no  one  say  that  only  of  what  a  man  is  the 
direct  author  may  he  claim  the  owners! dp.  Is 
Mr.  George  aware  to  what  ridiculous  conse- 
quences, battling  thus  against  common  sense,  he 
is  driven  ?  Parents,  for  instance,  are  the  authors 
of  the  bodily  existence  of  their  children,  whose 
souls  are  directly  created  by  God.  Now,  al- 
though the  soul  is  of  more  worth  than  the  body, 
parents  nevertheless  claim  their  children,  with 
body  and  soul,  with  matter  and  form,  as  their 
own^  and  say,  ''This  child  is  ours,"  or  "These 
children  belong  to  us."  Besides  that,  if  only  the 
production  of  a  thing  gives  a  title  for  claim  to 
ownership,  how  will  Mr.  George  defend  the 
ownership  of  land  for  all  mankind  in  general  % 
Did  all  men  together  do  anything  towards  the 
creation  of  land  ?  Just  as  little  as  any  indi- 
vidual ! 

A  human  individuum  may,  therefore,  come  to 
individual  ownership,  into  full  possession  of 
something  of  God's  creation  and  the  enjoyment 
thereof.  This  individuum  may  he  physicalj  that 
18,  a  single  man,  who  stands  independent  and 
acts  with  personal  responsibility  ;  or  it  may  be  a 
moral  individuum — several  men— or  a  whole 
community  working  in  common. 

Now.  what  is  the  cniise  of  formal  property 


Htnry  George  vs.  Archbishop  Corriyan.  9 

wMoli,  intimately  and  inseparably  attached  and 
united  witli  property  material^  accrues  to  pro- 
perty individual?  Or,  in  philosophical  terms^ 
what  is  the  causa  formalis  of  individual  owner- 
ship, by  which  God's  creation  comes  into  the  pos- 
session and  ownership  of  the  indimdual  f 

Archbishop  Corrigan  pointed  it  out  in  his  pas- 
toral letter — it  is  the  labor  of  the  indimduum. 
If  this  labor  has  produced  formal  property  in  an 
object  of  God's  creation,  be  it  land,  or  a  marble 
block,  or  anything  else,  by  culture,  art,  or  simi- 
lar agency,  the  indimduum  has  a  right  to  it. 
Because  he  by  his  labor  is  the  cause  of  the  form^ 
he  has  evidently  a  right  to  the  effect.  And  the 
effect  of  his  labor,  being  intimately  connected 
wiih  the  object  of  God's  creation,  like  matter 
and  form,  like  body  and  soul,  naturally  deter- 
mines this  object  to  Mm — brings  it  out  of  its  state 
ot  indifference  and  geT\eT?i\  potency  into  actual^ 
proper^  and  special  possession  of  the  laboring  in- 
dimduuvi. 

This  is  also  what  Arohbishop  Corrigan  asserts, 
sajdng :  "Such  determination  [of  individual 
property,  namely],  judging  from  the  facts  of  his- 
tory, the  sanction  of  law,  etc.,  lias  been,  and  is, 
that  man  can  by  lawful  acts  become  possessed  of 
the  right  of  ownership  in  property,  and  not  mere- 
ly in  its  use.  The  reason  is  because  a  man  is 
strictly  entitled  to  that  of  which  he  is  the  pro^ 
ducing  cause,  io  the  improvement  he  bringa 
about  in  it,  and  the  enjoyment  of  both." 


10 


Sooialisfn  and  the  ('hurch ;  or^ 


In  holding  this  distinction  of  property  mate' 
rial  and  property  formal  it  is  not  difficult  to 
find  (hat  the  fal^e  syllogism  Mr.  George  extracts 
from  the  archbishop's  pastoral  is  not  contained 
4  in  it.  Let  us  take  tlie  syllogism  and  analyze  it^ 
to  make  this  plain.  I  put  the  syllogism  as  it 
run>  in  Mr.  (jreorge's  letter,  and  place  the  analy- 
sis in  i)aren theses  : 

Tlie  results  of  human  exertion  are  property 
{formal)  and  (if  attached  to  property  material) 
may  (both  together)  rightfully  be  the  object  ot 
individual  ownership ; 

Land  is  property  {viaterial) ; 

Th(  r*:?fore  land  is  lightfully  the  object  of  indi- 
vidual ov^nersliip  (if  property /brTTiaZ  is  attached 
to  it !) 

This  is  the  drift  of  the  archbishop's  position, 
and  is  there  any  falsify  about  it?  The  falsity 
conies  from  Mi*.  George,  who  does  not  consider- 
ately distinguish,  assigning  a  sense  to  the  w^ords 
of  his  Grace  quite  other  than  the  meaning 
which  they  really  convey.  I  opine  that  I  do  not 
mistake  here,  and  that  there  has  all  along  been 
given  such  a  "distribution  of  the  middle"  as 
lays  bare  Mr.  George's  "minor"  misconception. 

In  Mr  George's  right  solemn  truism,  "God 
creates,  man  produces."  Ay,  indeed,  God  cre- 
ates— i.e,^  summons  the  really  non-existent  into 
existence ;  man  produces  out  of  something  erf 
God's  creation  which  was  given  to  man  that  he 
might  so  produce.    Poor  man  cannot  create,  and 


Henry  George       Jrchbishop  Corrigan.  11 


tlif^refore,  forsooth,  cannot  come  into  a  full  own- 
ership !  He  lias  a  warrantee  deed  to  bis  pro- 
duct, according  to  the  Georgian  tlieory,  but  a 
mortgage  of  God,  the  Creator,  is  annexed  to  it! 
Whilst  we  contend  that  man  has  a  warrantee 
deed  to  his  product  in  fee-simple  and  a  quit- 
claim deed  from  God  for  the  object  on  which  he 
produces.  If  any  prudent  man  buys  property, 
will  he  take  it  with  a  mortgage  on  it?  No  ;  he  is 
afraid  lest,  the  mortgage  being  sooner  or  later 
foreclosed,  he  might,  in  case  of  insolvency,  lose 
not  only  the  cow  he  bought  but  the  calf  also! 
And  if  man  owns  only  what  he  himself  produces, 
another  one  may  in  the  name  of  God  touch  the 
property  of  God  whence  the  produce  was  deriv- 
ed, and  the  j)roducer  will  lose  not  only  the  ma- 
terial but  also  the  product  of  his  labor,  which 
cannot  be  separated  from  it. 

The  artistic  foim  of  a  statue,  according  to  Mr. 
George's  dedu^'tion,  belongs  to  the  artist,  but  the 
block  itself  is  God's  creature,  and  can,  therefore, 
belong  to  any  one,  inasmuch  as  all  men  have  a 
common  light  to  God's  creation  !  How,  then, 
c&n  the  poor  artist  protect  his  work,  when  tlie 
nPiaterial  in  no  way  bel(m<rs  to  him?  He  would 
be  in  the  same  uncertainty  and  anxiety  as  a 
man  with  a  heavy  mortgage  on  his  property. 
Who  would  care  for  so  poor  a  tide  of  ownership? 

Mr.  George  claims  to  have  not  only  reason 
but  also  the  express  will  of  God  on  his  side. 

But  did  God  make  such  subtle  distinctions 


12 


Socialism  and  the  Church;  or. 


when  he  declared  in  tlie  Decalogue:  ''Thou 
slialt  not  steal — thou  shalt  not  steal  the  form 
of  a  statue,  but  you  may  seize  on  the  material  of 
it"?  or,  "Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbor's 
house,  inasmuch  as  it  is  man's  production  ;  but 
you  may  covet  the  matter  of  virhich  it  is  con- 
structed, because  that  is  God's  creation"?  He 
simply  said:  "Thou  shalt  not  steal ;  thou  shalt 
not  covet  thy  neighbor's  house,  field,"  etc.,  such 
as  it  is^  in  its  matter  and  form,  in  its  material 
and  improvements.  On  which  side  is  God  ?  How 
does  Mr.  George's  scheme  tally  with  the  Seventh 
and  Tenth  Commandments,  as  just  cited?  Is 
it  not  expressly  claimed  therein  that  a  neigh- 
bor {ix,^  an  individuum)  can  own  a  house,  a 
field,  which  another  has  no  right  to  seize  ?  So, 
therefore,  not  only  natural  law  but  also  positive 
divine  law  favors  unrestrictedly  a  full  ownership 
in  things  of  this  world  created  by  the  Omnipo- 
tent God. 

But,  as  in  the  Tenth  Commandment  God  also 
•forbids  coveting  the  neighbor's  servant  and  hand- 
maid, Mr.  George  may  conclude  that  they  or  a 
human  individuum  in  general  would  then  be  a 
rhatter  of  individual  ownership,  just  as  a  house 
and  a  field,  because  of  the  promiscuous  prohibi 
tion  !  Our  opponent  actually  tries  thus  to  bring 
the  right  to  property  into  an  absurdity  in  this 
canto  of  his  Georgics.  For  he  says  in  his  let- 
ter assailing  Archbishop  Corrigan's  position :' 
"Property  in  human  beings  has  been  longer 


Henry  George  vs,  Archbii^hop  Corrigan.  13 


and  more  widely  recognized  than  private  pro- 
perty in  land."  He  quotes  a  case  of  the  time  of 
the  union  of  Scotland  with  England,  w^hen  the 
hanging  of  men  and  the  burying  of  women  alive 
were  held  to  be  done  by  right  of  property.  I 
might  add  more  such  cases.  The  history  of  the 
ancient  times  tells  us  that  the  Romans,  Gre- 
cians, and  other  pagan  nations  kept  slaves, 
which,  like  any  other  object,  were  possessed  and 
owned,  bought   and   sold,  as    the  expression 

mancipiuin'^^  implies.  Lucullus,  the  Roman 
Croesus,  fattened  the  fishes  in  his  pond  with 
slaughtered  slaves  ;  Parrhasius,  a  celebrated 
Grecian  artist,  caused  a  slave  to  be  nailed  on  a 
rock  to  study  his  painful  features  for  a  picture 
of  Prometheus.  But  what  can  all  this  prove  ? 
Simply  this  :  that  the  right  of  i)roperty  may  be 
abused  just  as  anything  else.  Christianity  never 
sanctioned  suc/i  right  of  property ;  that  was  an 
error,  an  outgrowth  of  heathenish  peoples  who, 
according  to  St.  Paul,  were  sine  misericordia — 
without  mercy. 

And  in  proportion  as  Christian  doctrine  and 
Christian  life  made  progress  slavery  of  this  kind 
vanished.  '*The  slavery  of  the  Gentiles,  in  the 
sense  of  mancipiumy^  says  Cornelius  a  Lapide, 
commenting  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians, 

almost  died  out  amoiig  Christians.  The  Church, 
that  calls  all  men  to  Christian  liberty,  wants  all 
her  children  to  be  like  brothers,  and  so  she 
abolished  slavery,  lest  even  one  brother-Christian 


14  Socialism  and  the  CInirch  ;  or, 


miglit  serve  the  other  as  a  mancipium  ;  for  this 
were  altogether  unbecoming."  Neither  did  God 
give  such  right.  He  said  :  Rule  over  the  earth, 
the  lishes,  the  fowls,  etc.  ;  but  he  did  not  mention 
man  as  included  in  such  dominion. 

For  every  man,  as  such,  is  physically  indepen- 
dent of  the  other,  and  has,  by  this  fact,  rights 
which  he  cannot  alienate  and  which  another  man 
cannot  take  from  him.  However,  as  a  social 
being  he  may  be  strijjped  of  certain  rights  for 
justice'  sake,  as  a  punishment ;  or  he  may  biing 
himself  into  a  kind  of  dependency  by  his  own 
free  will,  by  free  contract.  By  this  another 
man  may  gain  a  certain  claim  upon  him  which  is 
protected  in  the  Commandments  as  being  based 
on  justice.  But  this  is  not  the  right  of  property, 
of  which  we  are  treating  here. 

Another  sophistry  of  Mr.  George  is  this:  that 
his  conclusions  reach  farther  than  the  premises 
of  his  opponent  allow.  Granted,"  says  he, to 
follow  your  illustrations,  that,  if  a  man  hew  a 
statue  out  of  marble,  he  is  entitled  to  the  posses- 
sion of  the  marble;  does  that  justify  him  in 
claiming  the  quarry  and  forbidding  any  one  else 
from  taking  marble  from  it  ?  Or,  by  congealing 
water  into  ice,  can  he  claim  the  whole  river  and 
hinder  others  from  slaking  their  thirst  ? "  (I  may 
here  ask,  in  passing,  does  not  Mr.  Geoige  venture 
too  near  the  water  without  a  life-preserver?) 

In  the  name  of  honest  logic,  I  may  ask,  where 
is  such  an  inference  contained  in  the  arch- 


Henry  Oeorge  vs.  Archbishop  Corrigan. 


15 


bishop's  pastoral?  It  is  one  of  those  exaggera- 
tions calculated  to  throw  dust  into  the  eyes  of 
the  people. 

Qiu  nimium  probata  nihil  prohat — He  who 
proves  too  much  proves  nothing. 

Yet  a  man  may  come  to  the  ownership  of  a 
q^unrry  by  legal  title — by  way  of  emption,  for  in- 
stance. Emprion  is  effected  by  capital,  and  capi- 
tal is  generally  amassed  by  labor.  In  most  in- 
stances, and  essentially,  cajjital  is  nothing  else 
but  the  surplus  of  labor.  A  laborer,  for  instance, 
earns  two  dollars  a  day,  but  uses  or  exjjends 
daily  only  one  dollar.  One  dollar  remains  as 
capital,  as  surplus  from  labor.  He  is  an  inci- 
pient capitalist ;  and,  in  fact,  nearly  all  our  capi- 
talists have  begun  in  this  way,  either  by  them- 
selves or  through  their  ancestors.  And  so  we 
are  coming  back  again  to  the  first  pi  oducing  and 
formal  cause  of  property — to  labor. 

"And  let  me  ask  you,"  continues  Mr.  George, 

to  look  a  little  closer  {sic)  into  the  origin  of 
property  rights.  It  is  not  the  carving  of  a 
statue  which  gives  ownership  to  the  block  of 
marble,  else  any  one  who  carried  off  a  block  of 
marble  from  your  c;ithedral  and  carved  it  into  a 
statue  would  become  its  owner." 

Mr.  George  evidently  imagines  he  makes  a  pal- 
pable hit  by  this  argument.  But  he  strikes  in  a 
direction  where  the  archbishop  is  not  found ! 
Archbishop  Corrigan  evidently  understands,  in 
his  exemplification,  property  which  is  not  yet 


16 


Socifflmn  ayid  the  Clmvcli  ;  or, 


indimdualizedy  or  res  nulUus — property  mate- 
rial,  as  I  have  styled  it  ;  whilst  Mr.  George 
brings  an  example  of  property  individual ! 

But  such  extravagances  are  not  allowed,  ac- 
cording to  the  laws  of  logic,  and  every  critic  is 
required  to  do  justice  to  the  views  of  his  oppo- 
nent without 'twisting  and  modelling  them  to 
his  own  idiosyncrasies. 

ir.   HISTORICAL  ASPECT. 

Not  hapjner  than  the  philosophical  comments 
are  the  historical  references  of  Mr.  Ireorge.  He 
thinks  that  ownership  in  land  is  but  an  out- 
growth of  modern  culture  and  civilization. 
There  is  a  grain  of  truth  in  that.  But  what  is 
the  cause  of  this  effect — why  did  rude  nations 
like  the  Arabians,  Indians,  the  Germans  of  old, 
seem  not  to  realize  individual  proprietorship  in 
land,  as  civilized  nations,  like  the  Romans,  cer- 
tainly did?  The  reason  is  because  they  did  not 
give  the  form  of  culture  to  land  property  ;  and 
thus  the  property  material — the  land  yet 
undetermined — was  not  individualized  by  special 
labor,  and,  therefore,  must  remain  in  common. 
On  the  contrary,  civilized  nations  apply  them- 
selves to  agriculture  ;  agriculture  entails  special 
and  individual  labor,  and  this  secures  special 
and  individual  proprietorship  of  land.  NiHil 
sine  ratione  sufficie^ite— There  is  nothing  without 
sufficient  reason.  And  just  this  land-coriimu- 
jiism  of  those  thriftless,  uncivilized  nations,  far 


Henry  George  vs,  Archbiskop  Corrigan.  17 

from  being  a  proof  against  individual  ownership 
of  land,  rather  forcibly  argues  in  its  favor.  It 
would  be  preposterous  to  enhance  individual 
ownership,  especially  of  land,  in  the  minds  of 
8uch  rude  nations.  But  from  the  time  a  nation 
identifies  itself  with  agriculture,  just  from  that 
very  time  begins  also  the  individual  ownership 
of  land.  This  coincidence  is  quite  natural,  as  I 
have  proved  above,  on  the  part  of  philosophy  ; 
it  is  linked  together  like  cause  to  effect.  It 
would  be  interesting  to  trace  up  history  also  in 
this  line.  Though  that  is  not  the  scope  of  this 
treatise,  yet  I  will  give  one  interesting  and  strik- 
ing illustration  found  in  Caesar's  book  De  Bella 
Oallico^  lib.  vi.  cap.  22.  Treating  on  the  old. 
Germans,  the  author  says:  Agriculturce  non 
studenV — ''They  do  not  apply  themselves  to 
agriculture,  and  most  of  them  live  on  milk, 
cheese,  and  flesh-meat.  None  of  them  have  a 
fixed  land  with  proper  boundaries,  but  every 
year  the  people  and  relatives  come  together,  and 
then  the  magistrates  and  rulers  assign  such 
quantity  and  situation  of  land  to  them  as  they 
deem  proper.  In  the  following  year  they  are 
forced  to  move  to  another  place.  For  this  they 
[the  Germans]  give  many  reasons  :  lest  the  peo- 
ple might  get  used  to  settled  homes,  and,  instead 
of  leading  in  war,  might  apply  to  agriculture  ; 
lest  they  might  strive  to  purchase  broad  terri- 
tories, and  thus  the  mightier  should  drive  the 
weaker  ones  from  their  possessions  ;  lest  they 


18 


Socialism  and  the  Church;  oVj 


might  build  so  commodiously  as  to  screen  them- 
selves from  heat  and  cold  ;  lest  there  might  arise 
cupidity  for  money,  which  is  the  cause  of  fac- 
tions and  dissensions  ;  finally,  in  order  to  main- 
tain contentment  among  the  people,  because 
every  one  would  then  see  his  fortunes  equalized 
with  the  fortunes  of  those  who  were  most  pow- 
erful." 

At  first  blush  this  looks  very  much  like  Social- 
ism ;  and  the  ideal  of  land-communism,  which 
Mr.  George  is  contemplating  and  striving  for, 
seems  to  be  realized  !  But  note  wA\  the  words 
with  which  Csesar  begins  this  paragraph  :  Agri- 
cultarce  non  student — They  do  not  devote  them- 
selves to  agriculture  ;  they  do  not  live  like  really 
•  civilized  people,  and  hence  land  and  the  products 
of  land  have  little  interest  for  them.  They  in 
their  primitive  w^ays  may  realize  such  a  tyi)e  of 
communism;  but  even  to  this  they  are  forced — 
Mag  (Stratus  ac  principes  .  .  .  cogunt 

Does  not  this  passage  from  Csesar  confirm  the 
truth  of  what  I  have  demonstrated  above,  that 
agriculture  almost  necessarily  involves  the  own- 
ership of  land,  and  that  non-ownership  is  an  un- 
natural, an  abnormal  condition,  which  only  by 
force  can  be  kept  up,  as  among  the  old  Ger- 
mans ?  Besides  this,  Csesar  does  not,  strangely 
enougli,  make  the  old  Germans  adduce  that  rea- 
son for  land  commnnism  which  Mr.  George  is 
urging  and  so  vigorously  pressing  forward. 
They  did  not  say  that  they  were  against  the  in- 


Henry  George  vs.  Arcliiishop  Corrigan,  19 


dividual  ownership  of  land,  as  an  injustice  in 
itself  or  because  they  had  no  right  to  own  land, 
it  being  God's  creation !  Too  bad,  alas!  that 
Mr  George  was  not  one  of  those  cheese-eating 
Teutons  to  furnish  Caesar  with  one  more  reason, 
and  that  the  most  important  of  all !  But  all  the 
motives  they  give  show  simply  that  they  deemed 
an  individual  possession  of  land  not  expedient 
for  them  as  a  warlike  people,  and  who,  as  such, 
could  not  engage  in  regular  agricultural  pursuits. 
From  the  same  source  it  can  easily  be  shown  that 
individual  ownership  in  land  is  a  prerequisite 
for  those  who  build  or  seek  to  build  up  hornes^ 
permanent  dwellings,  as  every  head  of  family 
must  rationally  desire  to  do. 

Again,  take  the  instance  of  non  ownership 
found  in  early  Church  history.  The  first  Chris- 
tians renounced  their  property  and  had  every- 
thing in  common,  not  because  it  seemed  wrong 
to  them  to  own  anything,  but  because  they 
thought  it  more  expedient  to  try  thus  to  save 
their  souls  for  life  eternal.  The  Germans  of 
old  and  the  primitive  Christians  practised  a 
kind  of  Socialism,  the  former  out  of  natural,  the 
latter  out  of  supernatural,  motives ;  both  thought 
under  the  circumstances  the  non-possession  of 
land  a  matter  of  expediency^  but  not  of  necessity^ 
as  though  individual  ownership  of  land  would 
include  a  flagrant  injustice  against  God  and  man. 
I  shall  recur  to  this  later  on. 

But  Mr.  George  argues  not  only  from  profane 


30 


Socialism  and  the  Church  ;  or, 


but  also  from  sacied  liistory,  and,  like  a  veri- 
table peregrinus  in  Israel^^^  tackles  the  books 
of  Moses  !  These  are  liis  words:  '^By  the  Mo 
saic  code  tlie  ownership  which  attaches  to  the 
things  produced  did  not  attach  to  the  land. 
'  Tlie  land  shall  not  be  sold  for  ever,  for  the  land 
is  mine,  saith  the  Lord,'  is  the  declaraiion  that, 
in  one  form  or  the  other,  is  reiterated  throughout 
the  sacred  books.  Their  constant  teaching  is 
that  the  land  is  a  free  gift  of  the  Creator  to  his 
children." 

Certainly  the  land,  with  everything  else,  be- 
longs to  God  in  the  last  instance,  because  he  is 
the  Creator  and  supreme  Master  and  Lord  of  all 
things.  The  creature  never  can  fully  and  abso- 
lutely divert  itself  or  its  legal  titles  from  the 
Creator.  But  this  does  not  preclude  that  the 
things  {jione  of  which  man  created)  of  this  world 
may  be  possessed  or  owned  by  man  according  lo 
the  will  of  God.* 

The  Lord  says  also,  according  to  the  sacred 
books:  ''Mine  is  the  gold  and  mine  is  the  sil- 
ver." Nevertheless,  Mr.  George,  I  presume, 
claims  the  gold  and  silver  in  his  pocket  as  his 
own  ! 

Besides,  everybody  even  slightly  acquainted 
with  sacred  history  knows  that  the  Jewish 
people  were  an  exceptional  nation  in  every  re- 
spect. Their  government,  their  laws  were  theo- 
cratic.   God  disposed  of  everything  with  them  ; 

*(''onf.  Su/mma  Theol.,  ii.  2,  quasst.  Ixvi.  art.  1. 


Hmry  George  vs.  Archbishop  Corrigan,  21 

hence  also  with  their  land.  He  lirst  promised  it 
to  them,  afterwards  handed  it  over  to  them,  but 
only,  so  to  say,  conditionally,  always  with  the 
restriction,  Si  mandaia  mea  seroaveritis — If  you 
keep  my  commands.  When  they  did  not  com- 
l)iy  with  this  condition  God  gave  this  promised 
land  to  their  enemies — to  the  Philistines,  or,  later 
on,  to  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians. 

In  fact,  the  nature  of  land  tenure  among  the 
''chosen  people"  rather  forcibly  militates 
against  Mr.  George's  Biblical  position  ;  for  where- 
as the  holding  of  land  was  granted  to  the  Israel- 
ites, as  a  nation  or  as  separate  tribes,  only  eondi 
tionally^full  ^uA  simple  proprietor sidp  in  land 
was  given  to  indimduals — i.e.^  to  the  heads  of 
families.  For  the  land  assigned  by  Josue  to 
the  Jewisli  tribes  and  families  remained  theirs  in 
perpetuum.  Though  they  had  no  right  to  sell  it, 
they  had  an  exclusive  right  to  claim  it,  as  the 
requirements  of  the  Jubilee  year  abundantly 
prove.  Besides,  the  liberty  of  selling  is  not 
necessary  to  insure  ownership  ;  there  are  laws 
in  European  countries,  especially  the  old  Saxon 
laws,  according  to  which  the  legal  heir  of  a  patri- 
mony cannot  sell  any  parcel  of  the  domain  or 
even  divide  it  with  younger  brothers.  This  is 
for  good  reasons,  but  it  in  no  way  impairs  the 
rights  of  ownership  for  the  occupant  of  such  do- 
main. Tijese  old  Saxon  laws  prohibiting  aliena- 
tion of  the  hereditary  domain  much  resemble  the 
Jewish  land-laws.    They  are  based,  we  may  say. 


22 


Socialism  and  the  Church ;  oVy 


on  tlie  same  principle — on  the  principle  of  con- 
centration—and therefore  they  have  not  the 
least  in  common  witli  Socialism,  either  in  ten- 
dency or  in  nature.  For,  according  to  the^Social- 
ist:s,  the  land  can  neither  be  owned  nor  s<Ml 
These  two  points,  according  to  their  theory,  even 
necessarily  follow  from  each  other,  as  effect  fol- 
lows cause — ix,^  one  does  not  and  cannot  own  ; 
therefore^  one  cannot  sell.  The  selling,  according 
to  their  supjjosition,  would  be  an  injustice.  With 
the  Jews  the  non-selling  is  a  condition  sepaiate 
from  ownership ;  with  the  Socialists  the  non- 
selling  is  a  consequence  intimately  connected 
vfith  their  land  theory.  Any  impartial  reader 
may  perceive  that  there  is  a  radical  difference 
between  these  two  systems. 

Again,  even  tl.is  law  providing  the  redemption 
of  land  in  Jubilee  year  had  binding  obligation 
for  the  Jew^s,  only  for  Judea.  Thus  asserts  Cor- 
nelius a  Lapide,  and  he  cites  authorities  for  it. 
''For,"  saj^s  he,  ''when  the  Jews  bought  land 
outside  of  Judea,  even  from  other  Jews^  they 
obtained  such  land  for  ever,  and  were  not  bound 
to  return  it  to  the  first  heir  in  the  Jubilee  year." 
In  plain  words,  they  enjoyed  full  and  unre- 
stricted ownership  of  such  land. 

Now,  if  the  foregoing  arguments  merely  frus- 
trate the  attempt  of  Mr.  George  to  squeeze  the 
^socialistic  land  theory  out  of  the  code  of  Moses, 
this  last  argument  makes  his  Scripture  thesis 
utterly  untenable.    Among  other  data  of  Jewish 


Henry  George  vs.  Archbishop  Corrigaii.  23 

history  I  would  here  refer  my  readers  to  the 
Third  Book  of  Kings,  chapter  xxi.,  where  King 
Achab  offers  to  buy  a  vineyard  owned  by  Na- 
both,  his  subject.  Naboth  flatly  lefuses  to  sell 
Ills  land  property.  Confiscation  follows  only 
when  the  owner  has  been  vilely  calumniated 
and  unjustly  put  to  death. 

This  much  is  certain,  and  also  expres-ed  in 
the  sacred  books,  that  God  had  reserved  to  him- 
self the  "promised  land"  in  general,  and  there- 
fore also  might  impose  upon  the  Jewish  nation, 
which  occupied  this  territory  as  colonists  of 
God,  certain  conditions  in  regard  to  contracts 
of  land  and  its  usufruct.  For  this  God  had 
special  reasons.  Cornelius  a  Lapide,  treating 
of  the  law  of  redemption  in  the  Jubilee  year, 
and  commenting  on  the  words,  "  Beverietur 
Jiomo  ad  possessionem  suam^^  (Lev.  cap.  xxv.j, 
says:  ''This  return  of  goods  to  the  first  mas- 
ter, in  the  Jubilee  year,  God  sanctioned,  first, 
in  order  that  the  tribes  might  not  be  con- 
founded, and  that  it  might  be  easy  to  find  out, 
by  inlieritance  and  by  hereditary  succession 
in  things  possessed  by  every  tribe,  to  which 
tribe  every  one  of  the  Jews  belonged  ;  second, 
that  honest  and  respectable  families  might  con- 
tinue to  be  such,  and  tliat  no  one  by  squander- 
ing might  bring  the  family  to  ruin  ;  third,  to 
set  a  bar  to  avarice  and  cupidity,  that  nobody 
by  purchasing  everything  might  get  too  rich  ; 
fourth,  that  there  miglit  be  kept  up  a  certain 


24 


Socialisni  and  the  ClnircJt  j  or. 


equality  among  the  Jews,  lest  one  should  be- 
come too  rich  and  another  too  poor,  and  so, 
without  envy,  pride,  or  murmurs,  every  one 
might  be  content  and  lead  a  sociable  and  friend- 
ly life  ;  fifth,  that  the  Jews  might  remember 
that  they  held  the  land,  not  in  proprietorshij), 
but  for  their  use,  inasmuch  as  God  reserved  the 
dominion  of  it  to  liimself."  That  is  to  say, 
God  reserved  a  general  dominion  of  the  Jewish 
land  to  himself,  but  left  a  special  dominion,  or 
right  to  possess,  to  the  individual  Jew.  At  leasts 
the  land  once  assigned  to  liim  w^as  pioper  to 
him,  and  no  other  Jew  or  other  man  had  a  light 
to  take  it  aw^ay  against  his  will;  and  this  is  what 
w  e  call  property.  Oi*,  in  other  words,  God  was 
the  landlord  of  Judea,  but  not  of  every  farm  in 
Judea.  As  landlord  of  Judea  he  made  land- 
laws  for  the  w^hole  country,  but  did  not  impose 
special  stipulations  upon  every  single  Jew  for 
the  parcel  of  land  he  held.  Thus  monarchs  and 
legislative  powers  make  special  laws  regarding 
Lmd  ;  but  by  this  they  in  no  way  claim  owner- 
ship of  the  land  every  individual  holds,  for 
such  laws  affect  more  the  condition  of  the  land- 
tenants  than  the  condition  of  the  land  itself. 
It  may  be  seen  by  this  that  the  good  effects 
Cornelius  a  Lapide  enumerates  in  connection 
wuth  the  land  laws  of  the  Jews  would  by  no 
means  also  follow  from  Socialism  or  Communism  ; 
for  the  Jews  had  Communism  neither  in  respect 
to  land  nor  to  other  possessions. 


Henry  George  vs.  Ai  chbi^Itop  Corriyaii.  25 


But  granted  even  that  they  had,  should  it  fol- 
low that  all  men  and  nations  must  adopt  what  God 
h^s  prescribed  for  the  Jews  ?  Nobody  can  prove 
by  this  exceptional  nation,  with  its  exci-ptional 
mission  and  laws  corresponding,  that  such  laws 
are,  or  should  be,  a  rule  for  all  men,  under  bind 
ing  obligation.  If  so,  the  Socialists  might  also 
be  bound  to  keep  the  Jubilee  year,  which  stood 
in  close  connection  with  the  Jewish  land-laws. 

Yet  niethinks  that  the  Socialists,  or  at  least 
not  a  few  of  them,  would  prefer  the  inverse 
order  of  years,  having  forty-nine  Jubilee  years, 
and  only  the  fiftieth  year  for  laboring  ! 

Granted,  moreover,  that  there  was  once  inaugu- 
rated a  communistic  state  by  positive  divine  law, 
for  reasons  of  expediency  ;  would  this  prove  any- 
thing against  the  teaching  of  the  Church  ?  The 
Church  of  Christ  has  also  its  pliases  of  Socialism. 
We  find  it  in  religious  communities.  But  this 
Socialism  of  the  Church  is  quite  essentially  dif- 
ferent from  modern  Socialism.  The  former 
means  free,  voluntary  renunciation  of  earthly 
goods,  of  land  or  any  jjroperty,  on  account  of 
higher,  supernatural  motives.  This  renunciation 
is  made  for  the  benefit  of  relatives  or  for  the 
benefit  of  some  community,  the  individual  trans- 
ferring the  ownership  to  the  same.  However, 
^uch  individuals  do  not  condemn  others  for 
owning  property ;  they  do  not  think  it  a  matter 
of  necessity  for  all  men,  but  a  matter  of  conve- 
nience for  themselves. 


2fJ 


Socialism  and  the  Church  ;  or, 


It  is  Socialismus  congruentice^  or  congruent 
Socialism,  in  contradistinction  to  Socialismus 
necessitatis^  or  necessary  Socialism,  the  form  de- 
fended by  modern  Socialists  in  one  or  other 
!  way.  I  call  it  necessary  Socialism  because, 
from  its  very  nature,  all  men  would  be  bound  to 
embrace  it.  For  if  it  is  an  injustice  towards 
God  and  towards  man  to  own  anything,  or,  in 
Mr.  George's  limitation,  to  own  land,  then  cer- 
tainly all  men  are  bound  in  conscience,  bound 
by  moral  necessity,  to  disavow  all  such  owner- 
ship. I  point  to  these  kinds  of  Socialism,  be- 
cause a  great  many  waiters,  peril  a  ps  also  some 
Catholic  writers,  seem  to  confound  them,  like  Mr. 
George,  wlio,  in  modestly  instructing  the  arch- 
biisliop,  says:  "I  may  perhaps  be  permitted  to 
call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  very 
opinions  which  you  stigmatize  as  opposed  to  the 
teaching  of  the  Catholic  Church  are  openly 
avowed  not  only  by  Catholic  laymen  and  priests, 
but  by  prelates  of  official  dignity  not  inferior  to 
your  own." 

Without  any  doubt,  if  such  laymen,  priests, 
and  prelates  adhere  to  any  form  of  Socialism,  it 
is  this  Socialismus  congruentice^  as  I  have  styled 
it,  not  the  Socialiismus  of  Mr.  George — i.e.^  Social- 
ismus  necessitatis.  They  cannot  safely  adhere 
to  any  other  kind,  because  this  last  sort,  I  may 
boldly  as^^ert,  is  indeed  opposed  to  the  teaching 
of  the  Church.  The  gh/ss  on  Summa  Theol.y 
qusest.  Ixvi.  (edition  Drouix  and  Billuart),  says 


Henry  George  vs.  Archbishop  Corrigan.  27 

in  a  foot-note :  ''Ad  fidem  pertinet  licere  aliquid 
possidere  tamquam  proprium^  qnod  patet  ex 
Scriptura  et  Traditione"  —  It  is  a  matter  of 
faith  that  it  is  allowed  to  possess  something 
as  one^  s  own — as  property ;  as  this  is  plain- 
ly proved  in  Scripture  and  Tradition."  Land 
may  just  as  well  be  understood  by  this  "some- 
thing" ;  at  least  we  have,  from  the  tenor  of  the 
sentence,  no  right  to  except  it.  Besides,  Su- 
preme Pontiffs  of  our  day,  sickening  of  Social- 
ism, have  more  than  once  condemned  it ;  and  so 
the  pre  eiit  Pope,  Leo  XIII.,  in  his  encyclical 
letter  ^^Quod  munus  apostolicumy  Mr.  Henry 
George  tries,  indeed,  to  find  an  argument  in  the 
words  of  Leo  XIII.  against  the  archbishop,  for 
his  land  theory !  Now,  who  understood  the 
words  of  Leo  XIII.  better,  Mr.  George  or  the 
archbishop?  If  the  archbisliop  misunderstood 
the  encyclical,  and  thereby  drew  false  conclu- 
sions in  regard  to  ownership  of  land,  Rome 
onght  to  have  him  censured  and  corrected.  But 
Home  did  not  gainsay,  though  Rome  is  so  much 
on  the  alert  and  the  present  Pope  is  so  very 
watchful,  as  New  York  has  already  found  out. 

Neither  does  Mr.  George  point  out  any  pre- 
late infected  with  Socialism.  Or  shall  perhaps 
Bishop  Nulry,  of  Meath,  be  one  of  them?  Mr. 
George  quotes  him  saying:  "There  is  a  charm 
and  peculiar  beauty  in  the  clearness  with  which 
the  great  social  fa(*/t  that  the  people  are  and 
always  must  be  the  rightful  owners  of  the  land 


US 


Socialism  and  the  Church ;  or. 


of  their  country  reveals  the  wisdom  and  benevo- 
lence of  the  design  of  Providence  in  the  admira- 
ble provision  which  was  made  for  their  wants 
and  needs  in  that  state  of  social  existence  of 
which  he  is  the  author." 

These  words  are  simply  approving  nationalism, 
as  the  Churcli  has  always  acknowledged  the 
rights  of  nations.  They  imply  no  more  nor  less 
than  what  we  read  in  Irish  journals,  in  pastorals 
of  Irish  bishops,  etc.  :  Ireland  for  tlie  Irish,  as 
France  is  for  the  French,  Germany  for  the  Ger- 
mans. But  in  no  way  must  these  words  be 
taken  in  a  modern  socialistic  sense,  inasmuch  as 
a  nation  may  possess  some  country  as  a  nation, 
while  individuals  in  such  nation  may  own  land 
as  well  as  what  the  land  produces.  Thus  do  the 
Germans  possess  Germany,  the  French  France, 
and  thus  should  the  Irish  possess  Ireland.  And 
I  may  confidently  presume  that  this  is  the  mean- 
ing of  Bishop  Nulty  in  the  above-quoted  pas- 
sage, which  consequently  does  not  bear  out  Mr. 
George  in  his  contention. 

Yet  a  social  state  may  be  planned  in  sensu  coii- 
gruitaf  is.  For  ii'  the  Socialism  may  be  that  of  re- 
ligious communities,  which  sometimes  number 
thousands  of  members,  why  cannot  we  also  trans- 
fer it  to  a  stat:e,  of  which  we  suppose  the  inhabi- 
tants and  citizens  freely  renounce  their  property 
and  individual  rights  for;  the  sake  of  trial  and  e;^- 
pediency  ?  But  this  supposition  includes  the  in- 
dividual right  of  property  dejure^  although  sus- 


Henry  George  vs*  Archbishop  Gorrigan,  29 


pended  at  the  time  de facto.  This  supposition  re- 
spects the  individual  right  and  ownership  at  the 
very  start  of  such  Socialism,  inasmuch  as  no  one 
can  by  violence  be  deprived  of  his  individual 
rights.  It  respects  the  right  of  individual  owner- 
ship all  through  the  duration  of  the  socialistic 
compact,  inasmuch  as  such  state,  after  an  unsuc- 
cessful trial,  may  fall  back  at  any  time  to  indi- 
vidual ownership.  But  these  two  points  modein 
Socialists  expressly  deny.  First,  they  do  not  wish 
to  respect  the  right  of  individual  ownership  at  the 
outset.  For  any  one  that  does  not  fieely  ac- 
knowledge the  socialistic  state  may  be  violenily 
deprived  of  his  right  in  individual  property. 
Second,  modern  Socialism  being  once  success- 
fully inaugurated,  Socialists  do  not  deem  it  right 
and  permissible  to  return  to  individual  owner- 
ship. Therefore  there  is  a  difference  between 
Socialism  and  Socialism  ;  yet  such  a  congruent 
socialistic  state,  as  construed  above  for  argu- 
ment's sake,  has  a  fitter  place  in  the  regions  of 
the  imagination  than  in  the  realms  of  reality. 

It  might  have  done  for  the  old  Germans,  who 
lived  on  cheese,  milk,  and  flesh-meat,  but  it 
would  hardly  answer  nowadays,  when  cupidity 
and  luxury  are  so  much  cherished  and  fostered. 
But  if  all  the  men  of  a  nation,  or  even  of  the 
whole  world,  could  reach  that  perfection  of  the 
apostles  and  of  the  first  Christians,  or  of  our 
religious  communities;  if  a  nation,  or  all  men, 
so  to  say,  would  be  nothing  but  a  great  and 


30 


Socialism  and  the  Church ;  or. 


nniversal  convent,  then  it  might  work,  and  tb 
Church  would  not  gainsay  it  either  theoretical- 
ly or  practically,  but  would  saj%  Amen — fiat. 
But  to  reach  that  stage  of  perfection  is  only  a 
privilege  of  a  t^vf—qui  potest  caper capiat. 
And  if  there  be  Catholics— laymen,  priests,  oi- 
even  prelates — who  are  dreaming,  not,  indeed, 
the  wild  dream  of  Mr.  George  and  other  Social- 
ists, but  the  mild  form  I  have  !>ketched,  let  them 
dream  ;  they  will  wake  up  some  time  to  the  pro- 
saic reality  of  to-day,  which,  at  least  in  this  re- 
spect, is  yesterday's  brother  and  to-morrow's 
also ! 

III.  SOCIOLOGICAL  ASPECT. 

Mr.  George  sees  great  difficulties  arise  from 
the  theory  of  individual  ownership.  See  in 
this  city  [New  York]  the  results  of  individual 
property  in  land.  Not  half  the  area  of  New 
York  City  is  yet  built  upon,  yet  hardly  one 
family  in  ten  can  enjoy  the  comfort  of  a  separate 
home  ;  while  the  poorer  are  huddled  together 
under  conditions  which  make  health  of  body 
impossible  and  health  of  soul  a  miracle." 

This  is  sadly  true.  But  is  the  system  of  indi- 
vidual property  and  ownership  of  land  the  re- 
sponsible cause  of  this  deplorable  condition  of 
the  many,  especially  in  laiger  cities  ?  Is  it  the 
only  cause  for  this  lamentable  state  of  affairs, 
and  is  the  (mly  remedy  for  a  change  to  the 
better  to  be  found  in  the  tinkering  of  Socialists  \ 


Henry  George  vfi.  Archbishop  CoiTigan,  31 


Hoc  post  hoc,  ergo  propter  hoc^  is  one  of  the  soph- 
isms of  superficial  thinkers.  The  answer  I  shall 
give  at  the  close  of  this  paper.  For  the  present 
I  lake  the  liberty  to  point  to  some  difficulties 
under  whicli  tlie  theory  and  practice  of  modern 
Socialism  labor.  It  will  then  ai)pear  that  Mr. 
George  and  his  colleagues  are  sitting  in  a  glass 
house  and  should  be  careful  not  to  throw  stones. 

Socialism  and  socialistic  states  are  no  novelty  ; 
they  are  almost  as  old  as  history.  Lycurgus  in- 
troduced a  sort  of  communistic  education  at  Spar- 
ta. Plato,  the  great  philosopher,  excogitated 
the  system  of  a  communistic  state  ;  but  Aristotle, 
no  less  a  pliilosophioal  genius  than  his  master, 
tears  down  the  communistic  building  erected  on 
sand.  According  to  St.  Thomas,  Summa  TlieoL^ 
ii.  2,  qu^est.  Ixvi.  art.  ii.,  he  gives  three  reasons  for 
the  lawfulness  of  property  individual:  ''It  is 
necessary  to  have  property  for  three  reasons. 
First,  because  anybody  is  more  solicitous  to  take 
care  of  any  thing  that  belongs  to  him  alone,  and 
not  to  all  or  many  ;  else  every  one  would  shirk 
labor  and  leave  to  another  one  to  do  what  con- 
cerns the  common  welfare,  as  it  also  happens 
when  there  are  many  servants  in  a  house. 

Second,  because  the  work  is  done  in  a  better 
manner  when  the  care  of  anything  devolves  on 
those  intimately  interested  in  it 

Third,  because  by  this  men  maybe  preserv- 
ed in  a  more  peaceful  condition  when  every  one 
is  content  with    ^re  sud^ — with  what  is  Ms. 


32 


Socialism  and  the  Church  ;  or, 


Whence  we  see  that  amongst  those  who  possess 
things  iu  common  and  undivided  very  frequently 
disputes  and  strifes  arise." 

If  I  mistake  not,  these,  or  some  of  these,  rea- 
sons are  also  given  against  Communism  and  So- 
cialism in  the  archbishop's  pastoral.  Truly,  the 
archbishop  is  not  in  bad  company  when  he  has 
Aristotle  and  Sr.  Thomas  Aquinas  on  his  side. 
At  different  times  in  the  past  three  hnndied 
years,  also,  such  errors  have  been  broached  by 
men  who  wrote  their  names  on  water,  not  on 
land. 

Let  us  not  only  look  from  afar  at  the  socialistic 
«tate,  but  let  us  enter  it  right  away  and  see  how 
weak  is  its  foundation  and  how  fragile  its  frame- 
w^ork. 

Mr.  George  would  make  the  state  the  owner 
of  the  land.  But  the  great  and  important  ques- 
tions are.  Has  the  state,  the  socialistic  state, 
n  right,  nay,  a  possibility  to  exist,  according  to 
his  premises  ?  And  if,  per  fas  aut  nefas^  it  dare 
exist,  would  it  have  a  right  to  own  ? 

Queer  as  these  questions  may  appear  at  first 
sight,  they  are  quite  justifiable  here.  If  Mr. 
George  admits  a  socialistic  state,  how  large  must 
that  state  be?  Howmany  inhabitants  may  it  have! 
Perhaps  fifty  millions?  Why  not  ten?  And  if 
ten  millions,  why  not  one  million?  And  if  one 
million,  why  not  a  hundred  thousand  ?  And  if 
a  hundred  thousand,  why  not  ten  thousand,  or 
one  thousand,  or  a  tribe?    Why  not  a  hundred^ 


Henry  George  vs.  Archbishop  Oorrigian.  .  33 

or  ten,  or  a  family,  the  foundation  of  society! 
If  a  family,  why  not  two  persons  ?  If  two  per- 
sons, why  not  one  person,  or  an  individual^  who 
stands  and  acts  independently — the  social  integer? 
Thus  we  come  down  to  individual  ownership, 
and  we  are  forced  to  it,  because  the  ''state"  is 
nothing  but  an  indioiduum  morale  ;  and  if  a  cer- 
tain state  owns^  ownership,  be  it  of  land  or  any 
thing  else,  is  thereby  indimdualized^  property 
individual. 

And  as  the  land  is  of  God's  creation,  and 
therefore,  according  to  Mr.  George,  for  all  men 
by  equal  right,  whence  has  a  nation  or  state,  ac- 
cording to  his  theory,  an  exclusive  right  to  the 
ownership  of  the  land  ?  For  let  us  suppose 
there  be  a  socialistic  state  formed  out  of  these 
United  States,  and  all  at  once,  in  California  or 
some  other  State,  rich  gold-mines  are  found  as  in 
1848-49 ;  can  the  socialistic  state  here  claim  the 
exclusive  ownership  of  such  mines  ?  May  not 
any  and  every  Socialist  come  over  from  Europe 
or  from  any  nation,  and  have  the  same  claim 
as  any  citizen  of  this  country?  And  if  Mr. 
George  (as  future  President  ?)  should  attach  the 
land  and  the  mines  in  the  name  of  the  socialistic 
state,  could  not  the  gold-seekers  justly  retort  his 
argument  and  say:  ''Why,  the  land  and  the 
gold  contained  in  the  land  are  God's  creation, 
and  God's  creation  is  for  all  men  "  ? 

Moreover,  can  any  socialistic  state  exclude 
iirimigrants,  if  all  men  have  a  right  to  God\s 


34 


Socialism  and  the  Church  ;  or. 


creation  anywhere  and  at  any  time?  So  much 
is  certain,  that  Socialiism,  in  its  last  analysis  and 
consequences,  is  ladically  and  completely  de- 
structive of  national  rights  and  claims,  for  these 
are  already  in  some  way  individual,  A  socialis- 
tic slate  is  wliat  philosophers  call  a  contradictio 
in  terminis.  For  Socialism,  in  its  very  nature 
and  tiudency,  is  and  must  be  international:  it 
knows  only  one  nation^  that  is  mankind;  only 
one  state  and  tirritory,  that  is  this  terrestrial 
globe  !  But  the  government,  the  man,  to  rule  the 
whole  world,  must  yet  be  found.  Tlie  Roman 
emperors  had  a  substantial  portion  of  the  world 
at  their  feet,  and  still  they  could  not  succeed. 
But  without  government  there  would  be  anarchy 
—anarchy  for  the  entii  e  world  ! 

But  granted  that  a  socialistic  state  may  have 
its  rightful  existence,  how  may  the  land  be  held 
by  the  individual  ?  There  is  another  difficulty 
to  be  met.  According  to  Mr.  George,  every  man 
has  a  claim  to  the  land  d  priori^  land  being 
God's  creaiion  All  right;  but  then  if  every 
citizen  of  a  socialistic  state  has  a  claim  to  the 
land,  every  one  has  also  a  claim  to  the  hest  land. 
Now,  in  no  country  is  the  soil  everj^where  of  the 
best,  nor  even  of  good,  quality  ;  there  are  also 
^' bad  lands"  It  is  a  physical  impob^sibility  to 
satisfy  applicants  on  this  head.  And  why,  then, 
place  Tom  on  a  sand  prairie,  whilst  Jerry  geta 
good  wheat- land  for  his  share?  Is  the  former 
wt  ^^vcitizen  with  equal  rights  as  Jerry  ?  And 


Henry  George  vs.  Archbishop  Corriga7i,  3S 


will  he  not,  perhaps,  some  year,  after  hard  and 
unsuccessful  labor,  come  to  Jerry  with  liis  big 
sons,  every  one  liaving  a  gun  on  his  shoulder, 
and  say  to  him  :  ''Jerry,  you  have  had  the  bene- 
fit of  this  good  land  about  long  enougli  ;  now, 
by  George,  you  must  take  my  farm  out  there  on 
the  sand  prairie,  and  I  shall  occupy  yours"? 
And  so  crowbar-brigades  and  wholesale  evictions, 
even  worse  and  more  numerous  than  in  Ireland, 
would  be  the  order  of  the  day.  But  may  be  the 
state  will  take  matters  in  band.  What  will  it 
do?  Perhaps  what  Caesar  relates  the  old  Ger- 
mans did — make  them  change  place  every  other 
year?  But  Csesar  adds:  "  Coguntur  alio  transire 
— They  are  forced  to  take  every  year  another 
place."  For  this  purpose  the  state  would  need 
a  special  army  to  evict  stubborn  land-tenants. 
And  if,  as  it  may  be  well  presumed,  many 
should  not  be  willing,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
would  resist  with  arms  in  hand,  continual  revo- 
lution and  chronic  warfare  would  ensue  as  a  con- 
sequence. Yet  Mr.  George  knows  another  way. 
He  suggests  it  in  his  letter  to  the  archbishop  in 
the  following  words:  *'A11  we  have  to  do,  to 
secure  the  equal  right  to  land  and  the  exclusive 
right  to  improvement,  is  to  make  the  community 
the  virtual  ground-landlord.  And  the  easy  arid 
simple  road  to  this  is  by  abolishing  all  the  takes 
we  now  levy  upon  industry  and  the  fruits  of  in- 
dustry, and  collecting  our  public  revenues  by 
taxation  levied  ultimately  upon  ground-vailues.'' 


36 


Socialism  and  the  Church;  or^ 


So  the  Innd  would  be  taxed,  according  to  his 
scheme,  and  presumably  the  possessor  of  good 
land  taxed  higher  than  the  one  holding  inferior 
land.  Good  so  far.  But  the  levying  of  taxes  in- 
volves assessment.  This  may  work  about  as  well 
as  it  does  in  non-socialistic  governments  !  But 
when  the  produce  fails,  not  only  on  account  of 
(he  quality  of  the  soil  but  from  other  causes, 
what  then  ?  What  if  a  land-tenant  has  no  crop, 
or  only  half  a  crop,  on  account  of  climate,  of 
want  of  rain,  or  of  too  much  sunshine?  Then 
also  this  must  be  ascertained  and  assessed,  to  be 
just  in  collecting  taxes.  And  this  flexible  sort 
of  assessment  is  in  the  hand  of  officers  who,  in 
appraising  reasonable  and  just  rates,  naturally 
depend  on  the  declarations  of  those  to  be  assess- 
ed. Would  not  such  system  give  rise  to  fiaud, 
bribery,  perjury,  and  corruption,  just  as  well  as, 
and  even  more  than,  "the  methods  by  which 
dvilized  governments  at  present  collect  the  bulk 
of  their  revenues"?  But  then  those  very 
"ground-values"  would  be  enhanced  (and  ap- 
praised accordingly)  by  marl's  improvements — 
i.e,,  when  built  upon  by  those  palaces  and  estab- 
lishments with  many  apartments  to  which  Mr, 
George  refers  with  all  the  vulgarity  of  true 
socialistic  rant  and  rot ! 

And  granting  there  were  no  difficulty  in  the 
distribution  and  possession  of  land,  there  would 
still  be  a  difficulty  concerning  its  products.  Mr. 
George  makes  a  sharp  distinction  between  them. 


Henry  George  vs.  Archhi^ho])  Corrigan.  37 

The  land  cannot  be  owned  by  an  individual,  but 
only  held  or  possessed,  as  he  terms  it,  as  with 
a  man  who  rents  a  farm.  However,  in  a  proper 
sense,  the  products  of  man  may  owned.''' 
The  reason  is,  because  the  former  is  God's  crea- 
tion, the  latter  man's  production.  ''Man  does 
not  create,"  Mr.  George  is  quite  sure;  ''God 
alone  creates.  What  man  does  is  to  produce  or 
bring  forth,  and  his  production  of  material 
things  consists  in  changing  the  place  or  form  of 
what  he  finds  already  in  existence.  What  in- 
dividual labor  })roduces,  to  that  the  individual 
right  of  ownership  attaches,  but  it  cannot  justly 
attach  to  the  reservoirs  of  nature.  It  attaches 
to  any  improvement  that  man  makes,  but  it  can- 
not attach  to  the  substance  and  superficies  of  the 
globe." 

According  to  this  statement,  land  cannot  be 
owned  individually,  but  the  improvement  and 
productions  of  the  land  may  be  owned.  A  land- 
tenant  may  own  the  crop,  because  he  is  the 
producer  of  it  by  his  labor.  Now,  is  this  really 
so  ?  I  ask,  in  the  name  of  common  sense,  has 
God,  the  Creator,  nothing  to  do  with  it  ?  By 
whose  power  was  the  grain,  sunk  as  a  seed  in 
the  ground,  brought  forth,  if  not  by  God's 
power  ?  By  whose  power,  mainly  and  princi- 
pally ^  is  a  crop  growing  ?  By  man's  power  and 
by  his  labor  ?  Holy  Scripture,  which  Mr.  George 
cites  now  and  then,  gives  the  answer  to  this  c 
**So  then  neither  he  that  planteth  is  any  things 


38 


Socialism  and  the  Church ;  or^ 


nor  he  that  wateieMi  ;  but  God  who  giveth  thti 
increase"  (St.  Paul,  1  Cor.  iii.  7).  There  lore, 
to  be  consequent,  nian  has  no  right  to  own  fully 
such  produce.  Advanced  Socuilists  who  follow 
out  principles  to  tlieir  last  conclusions  do  not 
admit  such  distinctions,  but  prochiim  equality 
in  all  things^  be  it  land  or  the  producis  of 
men. 

And,  besides,  land  is  not  the  only  thing  of 
God's  creation  on  which  man  produces.  Some 
men,  and  a  great  many,  have  to  do  mental  work. 
And  for  this  they  use  their  intellects,  with  many 
or  few  talents,  just  as  God  has  endowed  them. 
And  certainly  their  mental  faculties  are  al^o  of 
God's  creation. 

Now  let  us  take  two  men,  the  one  gifted  with 
great  talents — a  genius  ;  the  other  one  less  en- 
dowed, or  even  stupid.  Both,  let  us  suppose, 
have  made  their  preparatory  studies  in  equal  time 
and  w  ith  equal  diligence.  They  compose  a  poem 
or  a  treatise  on  some  subject.  The  genius  turns 
out  a  better  composition  and  gets  tweuty-tive 
dollars  for  it ;  the  other  one,  his  woik  being 
inferior,  only  ten  dollars,  though  perhaps  he' h^u3 
worked  longer  and  harder  at  it  than  the  former. 
It  can  be  seen  the  genius  evidently  sells  hi6 
genius  ;  at  least  in  this  instance  he  has  brought 
fifteen  dollars  by  it.  Has  he  a  right  to  them  ! 
Not  according  to  Mr.  George,  because  the  genius 
is  also  of  God's  creation.  A  similar  instance 
will  hold  in  the  domain  of  art. 


Henry  George  vs,  ArcFibtshop  Corrigan,  39 

To  make  things  right,  and  to  be  just  to  tlie 
laborer,  only  time  and  toil  should  increase  the 
vnlue  of  work  iu  literature,  science,  and  art, 
without  reference  to  scientific  attainments  or 
artistic  skill.  Such  arrant  twaddle  a  great  many 
Socialists  really  defend,  yet  they  are  not  incon- 
sequent in  so  doing,  as  I  have  demonstrated. 

But  the  realization  of  such  ideas  would  mean 
nothing  if  not  tlie  complete  destruction  of  art 
and  science.  The  thinker,  the  literary  man,  will 
not  trouble  himself  to  put  good  and  deep 
thoughts  into  his  books,  nor  the  artist  to  form 
a  masterpiece.  Neither  will  they  give  close 
application  to  study ;  they  simply  need  to  work 
very  long  and  hard,  no  matter  what  monstrosity 
of  a  product  may  come  forth  !  Indeed  a  bitter 
fruit  from  the  socialistic  tree  ! 

And  not  only  human  reason  but  also  Holy 
Scripture — which  Mr.  George  claims  to  be  with 
him  ! — is  adverse  to  the  distinction  between  hind, 
or  God's  creation,  on  the  one  side,  and  man's 
production,  or  the  result  of  human  effort,, on  the 
other. 

Thus  we  read  in  Deut.  vi.  10-18:  ^'And  when 
the  Lord  thy  God  shall  have  brought  thee 
into  the  land,  for  which  he  swore  to  thy  fathers 
Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob :  and  shall  have 
given  thee  great  and  goodly  cities,  which  tTwu 
didst  not  build;  houses  full  of  riches,  which 
thou  didst  not  set  up ;  cisterns  which  thoii 
didst  not  dig  ;  vineyards  and  olive  yards,  which 


40 


Socialism  and  the  Church  ;  or, 


thou  didst  not  plant ;  and  thou  shalt  have 
eaten  and  be  full  :  take  heed  diligently  lest 
thou  forget  the  Loid,  who  brought  thee  out 
of  tl]e  land  of  Egypt,  out  of  the  house  of 
bondage.  .  .  .  And  do  tliat  which  is  pleas- 
ing and  good  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord,  that  it 
may  be  well  with  thee  ;  and  going  in  thou  mayst 
possess  the  goodly  lands  concerning  which  the 
LQrd  swore  to  thy  fathers."  In  this  passage 
land  created  by  God,  and  things  produced  by 
man,  are  placed  on  the  same  level  and  in  the 
same  category  when  transferred  by  God  to  the 
Jews.  Why,  according  to  Mr.  George,  God 
ought  to  have  said  :  "  You  may  possess  the  land, 
but  let  the  products  in  the  vine37ards  and  olive- 
yards,  etc.,  be  taken  by  the  producers,  for 
*he  who  erects  a  house  or  improves  a  farm 
has  a  clear  title  to  the  building  or  im 
])rovement.' "  But  the  Lord  says:  ''The 
land  is  mine,  and  also  the  houses  and  cisterns 
and  vineyards,  every  product  and  improvement 
mine."  The  "Lord"  makes  no  distinction  like 
Mr.  George's  !  And,  therefore,  the  sacred  books 
bring  Mr.  George  to  this  dilemma :  if  they  prove 
his  land  theory,  making  God  alone  the  owner  of 
land  to  the  exclusion  of  man,  they  are  thereby 
against  his  produce  theory,  inasmuch  as  human 
productions  are  treated  in  the  same  way  by  God — 
taken  from  the  Chanaanites  and  given  to  the  Jews. 
Or  if  they  prove  his  produce  theory,  giving  man 
a  clear  title  distinct  from  that  to  the  land,  God 


Henry  George  vs.  Archbishop  Corrigan,  41 


would  have  committed  an  injustice  in  some  way 
by  taking  away  man's  produce,  together  with 
God's  creation,  land,  with  the  improvement  there- 
of. But  this  cannot  be  admitted.  God  owns 
everything  by  principal  dominion,  by  supreme^ 
and  general  title.  ''Domini  est  terra  et  pleni- 
tudo  ejus — Tlie  earth  with  its  plenitude  is  the 
Lord's."  Now,  if  God  assumes  supreme  domin- 
ion ocer  hoth^  over  mar}] s  produce  as  well  a.v  His 
own  creation^  why  shall  man  have  no  inferior 
dominion  over  hoth^  over  God^  s  creation  and 
own  produce  ?  This  is  the  intrinsic  objection 
against  making  such  sharp  distinctions  between 
ownership  of  land  and  the  productions  of  man. 
But  there  are  extrinsic  objections  besides.  Mr. 
George  fancies  that,  by  severing  land  from  in- 
dividual ownership,  the  miseries  of  this  world 
will  be  diminished ;  that  they  may  even  cease  \ 
The  evil  of  the  day  is  monopoly,  and  this  powerful 
and  voracious  monster  grows  out  directly  from 
the  present  notion  of  property,  of  land-property 
especially  !  But  his  land  scheme  cuts  the  head 
off  the  hydra  trying  to  wind  its  crushing  coiln 
around  the  whole  world  !  Thus  says  Mr.  George  : 
^^It  is  because  we  discard  the  admirable  pro 
vision  of  the  Creator,  and  permit  individuals  to 
take  what  was  manifestly  intended  for  all^  and 
thus  put  a  premium  upon  the  monopolizing  of 
natural  opportunities,  that  invention  and  dis- 
covery bring  curses  instead  of  blessings,  and 
all  our  prodigious  advances  in  art  serv(^  but  to 


4^ 


Socialism  and  the  Church  ;  vt ^ 


widen  the  gulf  between  the  very  rich  and  the 
very  poor." 

Mr.  George  serenely  promises  a  golden  era, 
freeing  mankind  from  the  iron  shackles  of 
J  monopoly.  Still,  a  close  observer  may  well 
doubt  of  such  a  consummation,  and  suspect  that 
at  least  the  Georgmvi  Sidus,  beam  it  never  so 
brightly,  will  not  herald  that  dawn.  Monopoly 
will  not  be  swept  away  by  giving  all  men  an 
equal  access  and  right  to  the  land;  it  will  be 
simply  transferred  to  another  field,  from  land  to 
products,  which  may  be  owned  with  "clear 
title,"  according  to  Mr.  George.  Now,  if  they 
can  be  owned,  they  can  be  stored  up,  can  be 
bought  and  sold,  can  be  speculated  upon,  like 
immovable  things.  There  we  have  the  capitalist, 
the  speculating  millionaire,  before  us  again.  In 
fact,  monopoly  nowadays  wields  greater  influ- 
ence in  the  produce- market  than  in  the  land- 
market.  It  is  on  produce  especially — on  wheat, 
on  cotton,  etc. — w^liere  the  ''bulls"  and  the 
''bears"  do  revel,  "corneiing"  each  other  arid 
pressing  the  "lambs"  to  the  wall  to  be  "fleec- 
ed." It  is  by  speculating  on  produce  chiefly 
that  our  millionaires  have  gathered  their  for- 
tunes. Will  this  be  done  away  with  by  Mr. 
George's  scheme?  Any  one  mvij  own  produce; 
this  gives  him  the  title  to  gather  produce  or  an 
equivalent  in  money,  as  much  as  he  likes.  Arid 
if  his  heirs  do  the  same  for  generations,  will 
^'the  gulf  between  the  very  rich  and  the  very 


Henry  George  vs.  Arclibisliop  Corrigan, 


4ei 


poor"  be  narrowed?  May  bo  Mr.  George 
annuls  the  right  of  inheritance  as  a  means 
against  accumulation  of  riches.  At  least  he 
would  be  consequent  in  doing  so  ;  for  if  an  in- 
dividual may  have  a  clear  title  of  ownership  to 
that  only  which  he  produces,  heirship  may  be 
questioned  ;  for  the  heir  owns,  not  Ms  produce, 
but  the  produce  of  the  bequeatJier,  It  is,  there- 
fore, against  all  sound  reasoning  to  divide  own- 
ership the  way  Mr.  George  does.  It  would  not 
do  for  him  to  stand  with  one  foot  on  individual 
and  with  the  other  on  common  property  ;  he  is 
compelled  either  to  place  both  feet  upon  Individ- 
ual  land — to  adoDt  individual  ownership /or 
land  and  produce — or  he  must  set  both  on  Com- 
muuism,  and  proclaim  the  right  of  equality  not 
only  for  land  but  also  for  its  produce.  The 
Bocialists  commonly  disavow  ownership  in  re- 
gard to  both,  and  they  are  consequent  in  this, 
as  I  have  shown.  I  doubt  not  that  Mr.  George 
has  drawn  the  last  consequences  to  his  theory — 
he  is  logici^m  enough  for  that— but  he  may  not 
deem  it  opportune  to  publish,  them  at  present 
and  so  let  the  cat  out  of  the  bag  too  soon.  He 
does  not  want  to  give  too  great  a  dose  of  poison 
at  .  once,  but  to  administer  it  drop  by  drop  to 
inake  its  deadly  effect  more  certain  and  more 
general.  To  what  exorbitant  consequences  full- 
fledged  Socialism  is  leading  is  not  the  object 
of  this  article  to  port^aJ^  I  leave  that  to  the- 
Socialists  themselves,  to  whom  properly  such  a 


44  Socialism  and  the  Church  ;  or, 

task  belongs.  Besides,  it  were  a  kind  of  hercu- 
lean labor  to  attempt  a  refutation  of  such  so- 
■oialistic  systt  ms  in  their  last  details.  They  are 
like  the  Lernean  hydra:  when  you  cut  oflf  one 
difficulty,  a  number  of  others  will  crop  out  at 
once.  These  systems  are  like  the  famous  Laby- 
rinth of  Crete :  if  any  one  attempt  to  wind  his 
way  through  them,  he  cannot  find  a  road  to  get 
out.  They  are  like  the  Fata  Morgana — fas- 
cinating the  multitude  by  visionary  fortunes  ; 
and,  alas !  only  too  many  are  deceived  and  fol- 
low blindly  to  the  social  abyss. 

Better  that  we  stay  in  the  old  social  building, 
which  is  no  air- castle ;  which  has  been  a  prac- 
tical, a  living  reality  for  thousands  of  years  ; 
which  is  plnin  in  its  architecture  and  based  on  a 
solid  foundation.  It  is  shattered,  indeed,  and  in 
need  of  repair ;  but  let  it  be  renovated,  or  even 
rebuilt,  according  to  the  old  plan,  and  it  will  be 
an  agreeable  dwelling  again. 

IV.  THE  KOOT  OF  SOCIAL  EVILS. 

There  is  something  rotten  in  Denmark"  — 
there  are  social  evils  even  amongst  civilized  na- 
tions ;  no  one  can  deny  this,  or  he  must  be  struck 
with  threefold  blindness.  But  the  old  theory  of 
property  is  not  the  cause  of  the  wide  gulf  existing 
between  the  rich  and  the  poor;  that  is  not  the 
root  of  the  social  plant  which  is  said  to  thrive  on 
the  misery  of  the  oppressed  class  of  men.  Mr. 
Oeorge  admits  this  himself,  in  remaikable  words 


Henry  George  vs.  Archbishop  Gorrigan.  45 

which  I  shall  quote  later  on.  The  real  cause  is 
not  error  of  uJider  stand  lug,  running  to  false 
conclusions  about  property,  as  Mr.  George 
imagines  ;  the  cause  is  an  error  of  the  heart  by 
cherishing  its  insatiate  greed  for  property.  St. 
Paul  tells  it  in  simple  yet  striking  language  : 

Radix  enim  omnium  malorum  est  cupiditas — 
The  root  of  all  evils  is  cupidity''  (Tim.  vi.)  Of 
all  evils — then  certainly  also  of  the  social  evils  ; 
also  of  the  social  evils  of  our  time,  which  Mr. 
George  so  feelingly  and  justly  enumerates — all 
honor  to  him  for  that ! 

Yes,  cupidity  is  the  feeder  to  the  extrava- 
gance of  the  so-called  upper  classes"  dwelling 
in  palaces,  driving  around  in  princely  carriages, 
or  walking  haughtily  in  silk  and  velvet ;  cupid- 
ity is  the  fever  that  consumes  those  of  lower 
station  who  burn  to  be  ranked  with  the  ''qual- 
ity" ;  cupidity  is  the  unhappy  mother  of  Dives 
and  his  brethren  ;  of  their  cruel  oppressions,  their 
grasping  monopolies,  spinning  like  spiders  their 
nets  to  entice  helpless  victims  ;  cupidity^  thence, 
is  the  cause  for  the  existence  of  the  poor  Lazaruses 
who  are  dwelling  in  unhealthy  tenement-houses 
and  subsisting  on  what  can  scarcely  be  called 
diet ;  cupidity  is  a  very  canker-worm  that  gnaws 
and  gnaws  at  the  vitals  of  the  body  politic  and 
social — cupidity  is  the  root  of  all  evils  !  There 
the  axe  must  be  laid.  But  I  am  afraid  our  time 
may  be  apt  to  fall  into  such  an  error  as  was 
committed  at  the  time  of  the  so  called  Reforma- 


46 


Socialism  and  the  Church;  or^ 


tion.  Religious  reform  was  necessary  and  the 
cry  for  it  was  echoed  on  all  sides.  But  the 
remedy  was  not  applied  by  the  would-be  Re- 
formers in  the  right  place.  Religion  iieeded  not 
reformation  by  man,   but    man  by  religion. 

Homines  per  sacra  immutari  fas  est,  mm  saci  a 
per  homines,"  are  the  words  of  ^gidio  di  Viter- 
bo,  a  man  who  well  knew  the  distemper  of  his 
time.  And  in  a  similar  way  these  words,  mu- 
tatis mutandis,  may  be  applied  to  our  day,  when 
the  cry  for  social  reform  is  sounding  fj  om  one 
end  of  the  civilized  world  to  the  other.  T'he 
property  of  man  is  not  to  be  reformed,  bat  the 
7iia7i  of  property !  Take  avarice  out  of  the 
heart  and  the  social  evils  will  cease  of  them- 
selves. 

Socialism  does  not  do  away  with  this  evil  root, 
and  therefore  the  tree  with  bitter  fruits  still 
grows. 

V.  SOLUTION  OF  THE  SOCIAL  QUESTION. 

The  flood  of  social  evils  is  swelling  continual- 
ly. Day  by  day  mankind  is  submerged  deeper 
and  deejjer.  Now,  are  there  no  means  to  rescue 
mankind  from  this  deluge  %  Is  there  no  axe 
sharp  enough  to  destroy  the  root  of  such  evils? 
Is  there  no  medicine  with  sufficient  sanative 
power  to  heal  the  gaping  wound,  is  tlieie  no 
balm  in  Gilead  ?  Yes,  there  is  help  for  poor, 
suffering  mankind,  if  man  wishes  to  help  him- 
self.   But  this  help  is  not  to  be  sought  in  Social- 


Henry  George  vs.  Archbishop  Corriyan.  47 


ism,  which  has  only  drastic  counter  irritants  and 
violent  narcotics  to  beguile  and  to  stifle  with  a 
vei  geance  the  woes  and  plaints  of  society  for 
a  time,  but  which  has  no  efficient  remedy  for 
healing  the  social  wound  itself.  The  ulcer,  if 
cured  only  superficially,  would  festei*,  ay,  soon 
break  out  in  another  place  and  with  greater  viru- 
lence. There  must  be  liad  a  radical  cure,  and, 
thanks  be  to  God  !  there  is  a  radical  means  to 
accomplish  it ;  it  is  contained  in  the  Epistle  of  St. 
Paul  to  Timothy.  I  have  read  several  treatises 
and  articles  on  the  social  question,  but,  strange 
enough,  nowhere  have  I  found  these  words  even 
alluded  to.  And  yet  if  St  Paul  had  been  writing 
for  our  times,  to  tell  us,  in  the  short  and  terse  way 
peculiar  to  him,  how  to  proceed  to  save  manl^ind 
from  social  calamities,  he  could  not  have  written 
more  pointedly.  They  are  wonderfully  adapted 
to  the  present  wants  of  society,  and  worthy  of 
being  unearthed  and  brought  out  of  their  ob- 
scurity. I  shall  give  the  text  first  in  full,  and 
afterwards  analyze  it:  ^'But  piety  with  suffi- 
ciency is  great  gain.  For  we  brought  nothing 
into  this  world,  and  certainly  we  can  carry  no- 
thing  out  of  it.  But  having  food,  and  wherewith 
to  be  covered,  with  these  let  us  be  content.  For 
they  who  will  become  rich  fall  into  temptation, 
and  into  the  snare  of  the  devil,  and  into  many 
unprofitable  and  hurtful  desiies,  which  drown 
men  in  destruction  and  perdition.  For  covetous- 
ness  is  the  root  of  all  evils  ;  which  some  desiring 


48 


Socialism  and  the  Church  ;  or, 


have  erred  from  faith  and  have  entangled  them- 
selves in  many  sorrows.  But  thou,  O  man  of 
God,  fly  these  things  :  and  pursue  justice,  piety, 
faith,  charity,  patience,  meekness"  (1  Tim.  vi^ 
6-11). 

St.  Paul  is  doubtless  a  good  teacher — a  physi- 
cian of  souls  prescribing  for  their  cure  by  his  in- 
spired teachings.  He  is  called  '''Doctor  genti- 
um^''— a  doctor  for  all  people  ;  good  enough  also 
for  our  times. 

Now,  he  sets  to  work  like  a  doctor  who  has  a 
wounded  patient  before  him.  First  he  makes 
the  diagnosis  :  ''You  have  the  dangerous  wound 
of  cupidity,  of  covetousness,  O  mankind  !  "  he 
says,  which  deprives  you  of  happiness,  tempo- 
ral and  eternal ;  but  a  great  gain  is  piety  with 
sufficiency."  Then  washing  the  sore  and  remov- 
ing the  irritations  which  keep  it  open,  he  draws 
out  the  thorn  which  rested  deep  in  the  wound., 
''For  we  brought  nothing,"  he  continues,  "into 
t?his  world,  and  certainly  we  can  carry  nothing 
out."  Mark  how  softly  and  deftly  he  draws  out 
the  thorn,  that  craving  in  the  heart  of  even  the 
poorest  man  which  allow^s  him  no  rest  and  the 
wound  of  cupidity  no  healing.  "  But  having  food> 
and  wherewith  to  be  covered,  with  these  let  us  be; 
conttnt?'  He  proceeds  gradually  and  probes  the 
wound — and  oh !  it  is  a  gaping  wound.  "  For 
they  who  will  become  rich  fall  into  temptation, 
and  into  the  snare  of  the  devil,  and  into  many  un- 
]profitable  and  hurtful  desires,  which  drowu  men  in 


Ihiiry  George  vs.  Archbishop  Corriyati, 

destruction  and  perdition."  A  deep  wound,  in- 
deed, ever  spreading  farther  and  farther,  is  this 
cupidity  ;  other  vices  are  as  its  ill-omened  progeny 
— ^luxury,  injustice,  impiety,  hard-heartedness, 
drunkenness,  and  God  knows  how  many  othei 
temptations  and  snares  of  the  devil.  And  many 
useless,  even  noxious,  desires  spring  forth  from, 
it — desires  to  grasp  together  everything  possible 
by  combination  of  capital,  by  monopolies,  cor 
ners,  pools,  syndicates,  and  similar  means,  which 
finally  drive  their  poor  human  victims  to  despair^ 
ruin,  and  perdition.  Is  it  not  as  if  St.  Paul  had 
in  view  all  these  unjust  and  hazardous,  though  at 
the  same  time  fascinating,  modes  of  money-mak 
ing  employed  in  our  day,  which  wreck  the  for- 
tunes,  the  welfare  of  thousands  ?  Alas  !  cupidity 
is  truly  a  deep,  a  very  deep  wound,  reaching 
down  to  the  very  core  of  social  life,  to  the  main 
spring  of  the  social  fabric.  ''For  comtousness 
is  the  root  of  all  evils.''  There  the  doctor  de- 
tects the  prime  source  of  the  social  malady. 
With  this  is  closely  connected  another  evil,  no 
less  pernicious  than  the  first — loss  of  faith. 

Some  desiring  have  lost  faith."  Are  not  the 
thousands  of  lukewarm  Christians,  of  fallen 
away  Catholics,  a  sad  proof  of  these  words  of  St. 
Paul?  Tliey  were  avaricious  for  the  things  of 
this  world,  they  heaped  up  riches  and  gained 
earthly  goods  ;  but,  alas  !  at  the  same  time,  for- 
getful of  their  duties  towards  God  and  man,  they 
lost  the  most  precious  gift —they  lost  faith„  And-' 


50 


Socialism  and  the  Church;  or, 


their  appetite  became  greatei*,  but  with  this  also 
their  troubles:  ''and  desiilng  they  have  en- 
tangled  themselves  in  many  sorrows." 
.  So  it  was  in  the  time  before  Christ,  as  ancient 
history  attests,  especially  the  history  of  Rome, 
where  between  the  richer  and  poorer  classes  a  con- 
tinual warfare  w:is  going  on,  ending  only  with  the 
downfall  of  the  enjpire.  And  so,  in  many  woes, 
the  victims  of  cupidity  have  been  worried  in  our 
time  by  strikes  and  boycotts,  by  popular  up- 
heavals and  scenes  of  destruction  of  the  most 
alarming  kind.  And  if  the  wealthy  classes  do 
not  curb  and  even  suppress  their  greedy  propen- 
sities, their  cupidity^  the  last  state  of  socie'y  will 
be  worse  than  the  first  under  pagan  civilization. 
This  wound  of  cupidity  will  bring  direr  eviis  upon 
the  actual  body  politic  of  civdized  mankind. 

Now,  the  gr<  at  apostle,  making  the  prognosis 
for  the  patient,  prescribes  as  a  skilful  physician, 
in  strong  and  solemn  words,  and  orders  the 
paiient  to  diet  himsdf  :  ''Flee  these  things." 
Then  he  applies  a  sixfold  i>laster  to  close  and 
heal  the  wound:  "But  thou,  O  man  of  God  f 
fly  these  things :  and  pursue  justice,  piety,  faith, 
charity,  patience,  meekness." 

These  six  virtues  are  so  many  means  to  cure 
wounded  society.  They  are  sufficient  ;  there 
need  not  be  one  more ;  there  should  not  be  one 
less.  All  should  pray  for  these  and  sincerely 
seek  wliere  they  may  be  found.  Let  us  note 
the  order  in  which  St.  Paul  places  them. 


Henry  George  vs.  Archhisliop  Corrigan.  51 

In  tlie  foreground  are  faith  and  charity.  In- 
deed, tliese  are  the  fundamental  virtues  even  in 
social  life.  ''For  all  our  sufficiency  is  from 
God,"  and  without  him  we  "can  do  notliing." 
If  he  does  not  build,  the  workmen  build  in  vain ; 
if  he  does  not  help  to  reconstruct  and  reform 
society,  all  endeavor  is  of  little  or  no  avail. 

Society,  says  Mr.  George,  is  divided  into  two 
classes,  the  very  ricli  and  very  poor  ;  in  fact,  the 
so-called  middle  class  is  reduced  year  by  year, 
and  the  gup  between  them  is  widened  every  day. 

Now,  let  us  place  these  two  divine  virtues, 
faith  and  charity,  in  the  breach,  in  this  widening 
gulf,  and  see  how  they  will  work  towards  the 
very  rich.  First  they  will  produce  piety — 
piety  towards  God.  For  faith  will  teach  the 
rich  one  that  lie  also  has  been  created  by  God ; 
that  he  has  received  from  the  hands  of  God  all 
the  goods  he  possesses.  ''Oh!  why  dost  thou 
glory,  as  if  thou  didst  not  receive  ;  for  every 
good  gift  comes  from  God,  the  Father  of  lights." 
Therefore  faith  will  make  the  rich  man  bow  down 
in  gratitude  to  God,  with  whom  there  is  no  dis 
tinction  of  persons,  but  who  will  rigorously  judge 
the  rich  according  to  their  great  responsibility. 

Faith  united  with  piety  will  produce  justice 
towards  man;  for  faith  teaches,  and  piety 
sweetly  attracts  to  the  benign  teaching,  that  be- 
fore the  throne  of  God  we  are  all  alike  ;  that  we 
have  all  the  same  Father  in  heaven,  to  whom  we 
pray  daily:  ''Our  Father,  who  art  in  heaven." 


o2  Socialism  and  the  Church;  or. 

Faith  united  with  piety  will  make  man  under- 
stand that  not  only  are  all  men  equal  before 
God,  but  that  they  are  also  brethren  amongst 
themselves,  created  and  redeemed  by  the  Al- 
mighty, who  extends  his  love  to  all  alike.  It 
will  teach  Dives  that  the  poor  man,  though  clad 
in  rags,  has  also  his  rights,  which  cannot  be  ig- 
nored, much  less  trodden  under  foot ;  that  he 
has  a  right  to  just  wages  for  the  work  he  has 
9one — ''For  the  laborer  is  worthy  of  his  hire"  ; 
that  it  is  even  a  sin,  crying  to  Heaven  for  ven- 
geance, to  withhold  the  just  earnings  and  wages 
of  the  poor.  Moreover,  faith  witli  piety  will 
bring  the  rich  man  to  take  compassion  on  the 
poor,  in  not  only  dealing  justly  but  also  charita- 
bly with  them,  as  Christ  urges  on  almost  every 
page  of  the  Gospel,  and  as  those  types  of  Chris- 
tian life,  the  saints  of  God,  have  always  done. 

Let  us  see,  next,  how  faith  and  charity  will 
work  towards  the  opposite  class,  the  poor. 
First,  they  will  produce  the  virtue  of  patience 
towards  God — i.  e. ,  patience  for  God's  sake.  Faith 
will  teach  the  poor  man  that  for  everything  he 
suflPers  in  this  world  he  will  receive  a  hundred- 
fold reward  in  eternity,  "for  the  sufifeiings  of 
this  world  are  not  to  be  compared  to  the  glory  to 
be  manifested  on  us."  And  how  abundantly 
God  rewards  the  poor  !  Christ  vividly  brings 
this  to  mind  in  the  parable  of  the  poor  Lazarus, 
who,  after  a  miserable  life,  reaped  eternal  joy 
and  happiness.    Faith,  moreover,  will  teach  tlie 


Henry  George  vs.  Archbishop  Corrigan.  5S 

poor  laboring  man  that  labor  in  the  sweat  of  his 
brow  is  indeed  a  curse,  inflicted  upon  every 
man  since  the  fall  of  the  first  man  ;  but  that  this 
curse  was  changed  into  a  blessing  by  our  Saviour, 
who,  by  his  example  in  laboring  himself,  mukes 
this  yoke  sweet  and  this  burden  light ;  who,  by 
his  life  of  labor,  made  labor  honorable,  and 
whose  toil-roughened  hands  are  no  less  a  sign 
of  honor  for  the  laboring  class  than  his  Five 
Wounds  are  a  sign  of  glory  for  the  faithful  in 
general.  In  both  these  things,  also,  did  the  great 
apostle  glory — in  the  wounds  of  Christ  and  in  the 
labor  of  his  own  hands  ! 

Finally,  it  is  the  laboring  class  Christ  invites 
to  himself:  ''Come  ye  all  who  labor  [labor  in 
its  literal  sense,  also]  and  are  burdened,  for  I  will 
refresh  you."  He  never  spoke  such  words  to 
the  rich,  who  seek  to  make  their  heaven  in  this 
world,  like  Dives  in  the  Gospel ;  on  the  contrary, 
for  such  he  has  very  alarming  words. 

Such  faith,  if  it  has  some  lively  hold  on  the 
hearts  of  the  poor,  will  make  them  bow  down  in 
resignation  before  God,  and  say  :  Thy  will  be 
done  on  earth,  as  it  is  in  heaven.  Give  us  this 
day  our  daily  bread  ;  we  are  content  with  that." 

Faith,  with  patience  towards  God,  will  also 
bring  the  poor  and  suffering  man  into  harmony 
and  sympathy  with  his  f tallow-men,  even  though 
they  be  rich.  These  two  virtues  will  pioduce 
another  virtue,  which  St.  Paul  mentions  last, 
though  it  is  not  the  least — meekness  towards 


54 


Socialism  and  the  Gliurch  ;  or. 


man.  Faith,  iu  union  with  patience,  will  draw 
out  that  thorn  of  cupidity  which  sticks  in  the 
heart  of  even  the  poorest  m^n,  of  one  who  can- 
not call  a  cent's  worth  his  own. 

These  virtues  will  do  away  with  that  insatiable 
craving  of  the  human  heart  which  causes  envy 
and  hatred  against  the  rich — pa!<sions  which, 
when  aroused  to  fury,  end  in  destruction  of  life 
and  property,  as  we  have  many  times  witnessed. 
Patience  and  meekness  lost,  wrath  and  lesi-nt- 
ment  and  revenge  rankling  in  the  heart  of  the 
Lazaruses  soon  burst  out  in  the  form  of  pillage 
and  bloodshed.  It  is  true,  the  dissatisfied  la- 
borers are  mostly  embittered  by  the  possess- 
ing-class ;  yet,  as  I  have  said  before,  if  the  rich 
be  imbued  with  faith,  fear  of  God,  and  piety, 
and  ill  consequence  should  exercise  justice  and 
charity  towards  the  poor,  would  it  be  promising 
too  much  for  the  poor  to  say  that  they  would 
then  be  patient  and  meek?  And  what  special 
reason  have  the  poor,  after  all,  to  envy  the  rich 
and  to  antagonize  socii  ty,  when  they  may  be 
contented,  like  St.  Paul,  wiih  food  and  where- 
with to  be  covered  ?  Can  not  the  poor  man  earn 
just  as  much  reward  by  being  virtuous  as  the  rich 
man  ?  "  Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit,  for  theirs 
is  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 

Now,  it  wounded  society  is  treated  with  the 
medicine  prescribed  by  St  Paul,  I  may  venture 
to  say  that  it  will  be  cured  radically,  and  the 
social  aches  and  woes  will  cease  and  the  social 


Henry  George  vs.  Archbishop  Oorrigan.  55 

qnestion  be  solved  to  satisfaction.  But  may  not 
Mr.  George  answer  to  all  this,  with  Shakspeare : 
I  have  a  smile"  I  Will  he  not  take  this  for 
a  mere  dream  to  be  smiled  at  ?  Perhaps  not. 
Perhaps  he  knows  that  history  speaks  for  my 
arguments.  Perhaps  he  remembers  his  own 
interesting  words,  which  I  have  promised  to  give. 
'^Practically,  however,"  says  Mr.  George,  *'we 
do  in  these  modern  times  treat  land  as  some- 
thing which  individuals  may  own  almost  as 
fully  as  they  own  things  produced  by  labor; 
and  this  is  the  reason  that,  with  all  our  un- 
questionable advances,  we  are  cursed  with  pau- 
perism and  want  unknown  in  that  ruder  state 
of  society  which  existed  in  what  are  sometimes 
called  the  '  dark  ages' — those  dark  ages  in  which, 
without  labor-saving  machines,  our  fathers  built 
cathedrals  beside  which  yours  is  but  a  pretty 
miniature ;  those  dark  ages  in  which  no  one 
feared  the  inability  to  make  a  living.,  and  in 
which,  save  when  caused  by  war  or  famine,  ah- 
solute  want  was  unknown.^'*  Ah,  so  !  I  am 
very  much  obliged  to  Mr.  George  for  this  declara- 
tion. "  Iniquitas  mentita  est  sibi."  Mr.  George 
knows  of  a  time  when  there  was  no  ''social  ques- 
tion" ;  he  pronounces  a  eulogy  on  those  ''dark" 
or  middle  ages  which  need  not,  in  this  connection, 
be  stronger.  And  it  is  true,  true  to  the  letter, 
what  he  has  said  of  those  ages.  If  any  one  takes 
time  to  read  the  first  volume  of  the  celebrated 
historian,  J.  Janssen,  History  of  the  Germain 


Socialism  and  the  Church  ;  or. 


People  from  the  end  of  the  Middle  Ages^  he 
will  find  ample  proof  for  it.  But  does  Mr. 
George  also  know  that  during  those  ''dark" 
ages  Socialism,  Communism,  and  similar  isms'' 
were  also  things  absolutely  unknown  ?  Does  he 
know,  further,  that  in  those  times  individual 
property  was  held  and  land  owned  under  tenures 
like  our  own  ?  Yea,  in  the  worst  form  even — in 
the  form  of  monopoly  !  For,  as  Jaiissen  the 
historian  relates,  in  the  middle  ages  land  was 
owned  mostly  by  aristocrats,  by  dukes,  counts, 
bishops,  abbots.  Free  peasants  owning  land 
were  in  the  minority.  This  state  of  things  ob- 
tained not  only  in  Germany,  adds  the  historian, 
but  in  most  of  the  European  countries  of  that 
time.  Now,  what  was  the  cause  of  the  blissful 
condition  of  those  dark  ages,  so  conspicuously 
absent  from  our  times  ? 

Certainly,  not  the  theory  of  Communism  ;  that 
was  unknown.  There  was  individual  ownership 
in  land,  sanctioned  by  civil  and  ecclesiastical  law. 
Therefore,  individual  ownership  cannot  be  such 
a  curse  as  Mr.  George  represents  it,  or  the  sole 
cause  of  poverty  in  our  time  and  country.  If 
it  were  it  should  have  been  so  in  the  time  of  the 
middle  ages.  Mr.  George  mistakes.  The  causes 
of  the  social  welfare  of  those  ''dark"  ages  are 
the  same  as  I  have  (^numernted  above — the  six 
social  virtues  :  Faith  and  Charity  amongst  all  ; 
Justice  and  Piety  amongst  the  rich  ;  Patience 
and  Meekness  amongst  the  poor.   With  these  six 


Henry  George  vs.  Archbishop  Corrigan.  ^7 

social  virtues,  which  are  the  conservative  forces 
of  society,  those  ages  were  permeated,  as  to  all 
classes  of  people,  as  every  one  acquainted  with 
the  history  of  the  middle  ages  should  know.  It 
was  a  time  of  lively  faith  combined  wiih  pro- 
found piety,  as  the  splendid  cathedrals  and 
other  church  monuments,  to  which  Mr.  George  re- 
fers, prove  to  this  very  day.  And  springing  from 
this  there  was  a  strong  sense  of  justice  towards 
everybody,  particularly  the  poor  and  laboring 
class,  evidenced  by  innumerable  works  of  chari- 
ty, the  shadows  of  which  project  into  our  time 
by  the  traditional  existence  of  hospitals,  asylums, 
hospices,  and  other  institutions  for  the  public 
welfare  dating  from  the  "dark"  ages.  Those 
times  were  animated  by  the  spirit  of  St.  Francis 
of  Assisi,  who  with  his  spiritual  sons,  the  Fran- 
ciscans, so  vividly  exemplified  the  six  social  vir- 
tues mentioned  by  St.  Paul.  And  if  our  time 
does  not  return  to  these  principles — to  faith  and 
chaiity,  to  justice  and  piety,  to  patience  and 
meekness — society  will  crumble  to  pieces.  Legis- 
latures may  help  a  great  deal,  but  they  as  well 
as  governments  must  be  pervaded  by  this  spirit, 
else  the  blind  will  be  leading  the  blind,  to  the 
fatal  detriment  of  both.  Organizations  are  very 
useful,  and  nowadays,  as  an  antidote,  they  are 
even  necessary ;  but  they,  too,  must  make  these 
six  virtues  their  platform  of  piinciples.  Other- 
wise, instead  of  helping  to  solve  the  social  ques- 
tion, they  will  help  to  dissolve  society  and 


58 


Socialism  and  the  Church  ;  or, 


hasten  the  social  catastrophe  feared  by  all,  and 
even  predicted  by  some. 

Sliall  it  come  ?  Well,  anybody  having  read  the 
foregoing  pages  may  form  the  answer  for  himself. 
I  But  whether  this  catastrophe  may  be  averted  or 
;  not,  it  is  the  ^\xty  of  every  man  and  of  every 
Christian  to  lend  a  helping  hand  to  abate  our  cry- 
ing social  evils  by  his  talents,  his  means,  and  his 
position  in  life.  Thus,  if  it  cannot  be  averted  al- 
together, its  time,  at  least,  might  be  shortened 
and  its  fury  diminished.  The  Church  of  Christ 
will  surely  throw  open  her  door  to  the  poor  suf 
ferer.  Society,  since  she  has  always  sided  with  the 
poor  and  the  suffering,  as  her  Founder  com- 
manded her  to  do  :  Have  care  for  the  poor  ;  the 
poor  you  have  always  with  you"  ;  even  as  he 
commissioned  her  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  the 
poor — Eoangelizare  pauper ibus.  So  the  Ch  urch 
has  ever  complied  with  this  mandate.  By  real 
Catholic  charity  she  has  lavished  attentions 
upon  the  poor,  in  every  country  and  of  every 
time.  Indeed,  if  a  detailed  history  was  written 
on  this  subject,  the  words  of  St.  John  might  be 
verified,  "that  the  world  could  not  contain  the 
books"  relating  what  the  Church,  in  her  pontiffs, 
in  her  priests,  in  her  religious  orders,  in  her  chari- 
table institutions,  in  her  Saints,  has  done  for  poor, 
snffering  mankind.  Yet  there  is  no  need  of  this  ; 
all  the  world  not  yet  blind  in  hatred  against 
God  and  God's  Church  knows  and  acknowledges 
it     And  so  also,  in  future,  the  Church  will 


Henry  George  vs.  Archiisliop  Corrigan,  59 


move  on  witljout  fear,  and  teach  society,  thougli 
shaken  to  its  very  foundation,  the  true  way  to 
social  hajypiness,  by  reminding  every  man,  the 
rich  and  the  poor^  of  those  salutary  words  of  St. 
Paul :  Flee  those  systems  of  Naturalism  and 
Socialism  and  Communism :  but  thou,  O  mnn  of 
God,  O  Christian,  follow  justice,  piety,  faith, 
charity,  patience,  meekness. 


Under  which  king,  Bezonian  ?   Speak,  or  die  ! 


^1 


i 


i 


f 


